From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 1 04:53:26 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA01956; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 04:52:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 04:52:13 -0700 Message-ID: <002d01bdd59e$350aef20$478f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: "Vortex-L" Cc: "George" Subject: Re: Over-Unity Resistors? Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 05:46:07 -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: <"a2yDm1.0.PU.i_zwr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21965 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Joule's Law established the electrical value of heat: P = I^2*R, or E^2/R, or I*E, is it possible that different resistor materials, say Carbon as opposed to Silver when tested in a water bath or such at high power levels,may give a higher temperature rise (o-u) in the water? The point is that electron-phonon scattering in the higher resistivity or higher current driven materials may be extracting ZPE. Any Bets? :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 1 05:11:03 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA04887; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 05:10:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 05:10:15 -0700 Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 13:09:19 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Over-Unity Resistors? In-Reply-To: <002d01bdd59e$350aef20$478f85ce default> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Remi Cornwall Resent-Message-ID: <"teoJZ3.0.CC1.cG-wr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21966 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Bollox. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 1 05:29:17 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA08271; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 05:26:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 05:26:04 -0700 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980901082716.00c33c34 popd.ix.netcom.com> X-Sender: atech popd.ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 08:27:16 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Dennis C. Lee" Subject: Re: I just talked to Searl Resent-Message-ID: <"rmnPM2.0.812.SV-wr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21967 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:39 AM 8/31/98 -0400, you wrote: > > So far 600,000,000 pounds has been spent world wide. > >On his device?!? That's dreadful! I hope it is not true. Apparently they have >nothing to show for the money, because they are not selling anything. It >sounds like the hot fusion program. Prof. Searl would break every rule in your book. Yet he is the only person qualified to build his device (they are giving the money to other people). In this case, it's a personality thing independent of technical ability. Dennis "If we knew what we were doing, we wouldn't call it research." Albert Einstein Tall Ships http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 1 06:46:54 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA31663; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 06:45:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 06:45:32 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980901095216.00c7ecd0 spectre.mitre.org> X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 09:52:16 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Robert I. Eachus" Subject: Re: gravity as a source of energy (fwd) In-Reply-To: <199808312033_MC2-57F6-4092 compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"xo6aT1.0.Wk7.xf_wr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21968 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 08:30 PM 8/31/98 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: >Okay, so where does the energy come from? Are we both going to crash into the >sun? What about Io? It is turning itself inside out. With that massive release >of energy, if the orbit is not decaying I begin to think gravity might be a >source of energy after all. It is much more complicated than that. There are many forces affecting the orbit of the earth and moon around the sun. These include perturbations by other planets (mainly Jupiter), tidal drag by the sun, the drag (and pressure) of the solar wind, radiation pressure, electrostatic forces, electromagnetic forces, and relativistic effects. But the net effects on the orbit are small. The earth will eventually be swallowed by the sun, but not because of orbital decay. The sun will become a red giant star and expand to include the orbits of all the inner planets, with the possible exception of Mars. 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 Sep 1 07:15:14 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA08116; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 07:13:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 07:13:40 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980901101556.00c82100 spectre.mitre.org> X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 10:15:56 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Robert I. Eachus" Subject: Re: YEP!!!Re: Academic proof of altered half-life Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com, Birger.Fogelberg@studsvik.uu.se, David@bahnhof.se, John Schnurer In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.3.32.19980831094241.0069b390 mail.bahnhof.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"6TKNv1.0.j-1.J40xr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21969 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 06:33 PM 8/31/98 -0400, John Schnurer wrote: > We were able to do this using Barkers' dry method about 3 years >ago... not a mystery and open to anyone. Yep, and I keep waiting for someone to come up with a practical method for using it to generate power. Due to the thorium decay chain, most of the energy is released over about a five to ten year period, so this would definitely be a base load energy source. (The two Uranium long decay chains have elements in them with half-lives in the thousands of years, and thorium is much more abundant than uranium, so thorium is the natural choice for this.) 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 Sep 1 07:19:58 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA10055; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 07:17:27 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 07:17:27 -0700 Message-ID: <19980901141857.27052.rocketmail send103.yahoomail.com> Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 07:18:57 -0700 (PDT) From: ron kita Subject: Professor(?) Searle To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"PXpdc2.0.1T2.s70xr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21970 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Will some one please inform me on how Searle became a professor. Please name the institution. Best, Ron Kita ...as of a few years ago, I knew of no such title. _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 1 07:44:36 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA18289; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 07:43:56 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 07:43:56 -0700 From: BriggsRO aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 10:44:28 EDT To: vortex-l eskimo.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Over-Unity Resistors? Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 170 Resent-Message-ID: <"ULqx91.0.fT4.hW0xr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21971 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In a message dated 9/1/98 5:11:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ad502 iesun9 writes: << Bollox. >> Probably, but what kind and how big? Bob Briggs From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 1 07:55:43 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA22159; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 07:52:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 07:52:59 -0700 Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 15:52:04 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Over-Unity Resistors? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Remi Cornwall Resent-Message-ID: <"cjzyB1.0.xP5.Af0xr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21972 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Much confusion here:- First ou resistors is oxy-moronic. Not Joule's Law but Ohm's Law. Assume pd across resistor is measured relative as+ve, we are in first quadrant. To generate power we must be in second. So the phenomena described are deviations from Ohm's law which is interesting anyway but not ou.Am I to believe that at correct bias point, reistor will flip to second quandrant and start generating power? Remi. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 1 08:47:45 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA08661; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 08:42:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 08:42:21 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980901104238.00d4f1b4 mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 10:42:38 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Meyer studied Keely? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"gXAqk2.0.E72.TN1xr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21973 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A I have just read the account of John W. Keely's work given in "Perpetual Motion, A History of Obsession", by Arthur Ord-Hume and there are interesting parallels with Meyer's work. Ord-Hume says Keely used pseudo-technical language with terms like "hydro-pneumatic-pulsating-vacu-engine", "sympathetic equilibrium", "etheric disintegration", "quadruple negative harmonics", and "atomic triplets". Meyer's terms are more contemporary but have a similar flavor: "voltage ticking of state space", "optical thermal lens", "thermal gas ignition by way of atomic particle agitation", and "resonant pulse-frequency voltage". Keely claimed to derive power from the disintegration of water and boasted that "his motor, on one quart of water, would run a train from Philadelphia right across the continent to San Francisco." Meyer also claimed to derive power from the disintegration of water and boasted that "we can drive a car across the United States on only a handful of water for fuel...or we can release enough energy to fly an executive jet at 550 m.p.h. for one hour on one gallon of water...or we can develop tactical aircraft carrying full armament which can 'scoop up' sea water for fuel and continue on to it's objectives without relying on other fueling sources." Does anyone know if Meyer was familiar with Keely's efforts? 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 Sep 1 08:59:16 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA13090; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 08:54:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 08:54:41 -0700 Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 08:55:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Ostrowski To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Oscilloscopes (fwd) In-Reply-To: <19980901064936.28136.rocketmail send104.yahoomail.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"4vBmE1.0.NC3.0Z1xr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21974 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 31 Aug 1998, Michael Schaffer wrote: {snip] > > >From the above, you can appreciate that a dual channel scope will work > for you only if your experimental pulse repeats and is rigorously > synched to a timing pulse that is sent to the scope timebase trigger. > Nice explanation , Michael. It appears that Kyle wants to be able to look at "phase change rates" (quoting him from a private email) that occur at a source (let's say at channel 1) and compare this information with what is displayed at the target (at channel 2). So this I think could be accomplished by selecting two different trigger points on the waveform and looking for differnces in the displays of two separate "takes" of the waveforms. The important advantage that a digital scope would have over an analog in this situation is the save and store capability that the digital has that most analogs don't have. The important thing though is that when a sample is taken from channel 1 SIMULTANEOUSLY a sample is taken at channel 2 by independent inputs, and whether the display method is chopped or alternate the timings of these samples are displayed correctly on the crt or computer screen. Is this right? Jim ostrowski From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 1 09:21:39 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA22172; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 09:16:05 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 09:16:05 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980901111853.00d5902c mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 11:18:53 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Oscilloscopes (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: <19980901064936.28136.rocketmail send104.yahoomail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"livPo.0.GQ5.5t1xr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21975 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 08:55 9/1/98 -0700, Jim Ostrowski wrote: >The important thing though is that when a sample is taken from channel 1 >SIMULTANEOUSLY a sample is taken at channel 2 by independent inputs, and >whether the display method is chopped or alternate the timings of these >samples are displayed correctly on the crt or computer screen. All the 2-channel analog scopes I've seen have separate input amplifiers. Thus they ARE "sampling" the inputs simultaneously. It's only the display that's not simultaneous on a single-beam scope. To use an analog scope, Kyle will need to arrange for his experiment to repeat itself at rapid, fairly regular intervals (ideally ~10/second). Then he can use either Alt or Chop and see a nice picture of the timing difference between the two signals. If he can only get the experiment to fire once in a while, he'll have to use Chop (Alternate would then be useless), turn out all the lights and take advantage of the screen phospor's persistence to read the desired time interval off the screen's graduations. 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 Sep 1 09:56:05 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA02712; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 09:53:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 09:53:07 -0700 Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 09:54:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Ostrowski To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Oscilloscopes (fwd) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980901111853.00d5902c mail.eden.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"DN_ec.0.Eg.oP2xr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21976 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, Scott Little wrote: > At 08:55 9/1/98 -0700, Jim Ostrowski wrote: > > >The important thing though is that when a sample is taken from channel 1 > >SIMULTANEOUSLY a sample is taken at channel 2 by independent inputs, and > >whether the display method is chopped or alternate the timings of these > >samples are displayed correctly on the crt or computer screen. > > All the 2-channel analog scopes I've seen have separate input amplifiers. > Thus they ARE "sampling" the inputs simultaneously. It's only the display > that's not simultaneous on a single-beam scope. I've seen some scopes ( analog ) that can actually skew simultaneous peaks to appear time displaced by playing with the trigger level. To use an analog scope, > Kyle will need to arrange for his experiment to repeat itself at rapid, > fairly regular intervals (ideally ~10/second). Then he can use either Alt > or Chop and see a nice picture of the timing difference between the two > signals. > > If he can only get the experiment to fire once in a while, he'll have to > use Chop (Alternate would then be useless), turn out all the lights and > take advantage of the screen phospor's persistence to read the desired time > interval off the screen's graduations. > ??? Are you kidding , Scott ,or what? One's vision persistence is way longer that a (good) scope's phosphor persistence, I thought. Jim O. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 1 10:01:12 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA05309; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 09:58:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 09:58:52 -0700 Message-ID: <00e501bdd5c9$0c4a9880$478f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: "Vortex-L" Subject: CNN - Research suggests virus may play role in depression Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 10:53:07 -0600 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_00DE_01BDD596.B3CE62E0" Resent-Message-ID: <"TJnuu3.0.pI1.BV2xr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21977 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_00DE_01BDD596.B3CE62E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Then you see this.... :-) http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9808/31/depression.virus/ ------=_NextPart_000_00DE_01BDD596.B3CE62E0 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="CNN - Research suggests virus may play role in depression - August 31, 1998.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="CNN - Research suggests virus may play role in depression - August 31, 1998.url" [InternetShortcut] URL=http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9808/31/depression.virus/ Modified=607C6AABC8D5BD014C ------=_NextPart_000_00DE_01BDD596.B3CE62E0-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 1 10:01:31 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA05435; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 09:59:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 09:59:00 -0700 Message-ID: <00e401bdd5c9$0b1c78c0$478f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: "Vortex-L" Subject: Internet can make you lonely, depressed - Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 10:52:24 -0600 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_00D2_01BDD596.9A872240" Resent-Message-ID: <"2FtK51.0.aK1.JV2xr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21978 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_00D2_01BDD596.9A872240 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You see this.... http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9808/30/cyberstudy/ ------=_NextPart_000_00D2_01BDD596.9A872240 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name=" Internet can make you lonely, depressed - August 30, 1998.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=" Internet can make you lonely, depressed - August 30, 1998.url" [InternetShortcut] URL=http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9808/30/cyberstudy/ Modified=A0B30553C8D5BD0106 ------=_NextPart_000_00D2_01BDD596.9A872240-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 1 10:04:00 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA08782; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 10:01:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 10:01:55 -0700 Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 10:03:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Ostrowski To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Oscilloscopes (fwd) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980901111853.00d5902c mail.eden.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"VlkZP2.0.692.3Y2xr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21979 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, Scott Little wrote: > At 08:55 9/1/98 -0700, Jim Ostrowski wrote: > > All the 2-channel analog scopes I've seen have separate input amplifiers. > Thus they ARE "sampling" the inputs simultaneously. It's only the display > that's not simultaneous on a single-beam scope. To use an analog scope, > Kyle will need to arrange for his experiment to repeat itself at rapid, > fairly regular intervals (ideally ~10/second). Then he can use either Alt > or Chop and see a nice picture of the timing difference between the two > signals. Suppose one wanted to use an analog scope , dual trace to monitor the output of a frequency sweeping generator at channel 1 and a phase shifted rendition of the same at channel 2 . Even if the frequency sweep is only a few kilocycles how would one's eyes keep up with what is going on? Gotta use a digital for that I think so you could "freeze" the action somehow. Jim O. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 1 10:57:48 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA28743; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 10:55:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 10:55:33 -0700 Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 13:53:16 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Internet can make you lonely, depres Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809011355_MC2-5803-4179 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"N3GTt3.0.117.KK3xr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21980 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex There was a good summary of this study in the Sunday New York Times. The scientists who did the study were surprised by the outcome. They did not expect to find increased loneliness and alienation among heavy Internet users. I am not surprised. I think you will see the same syndrome with heavy library users, people who watch television too much, or people who read three newspapers and a novel per day. It is too much of a good thing. It is substituting impersonal written communication for conversation. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 1 11:15:02 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA04459; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 11:13:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 11:13:04 -0700 Message-ID: <35EC384D.28C86315 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 21:09:17 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Internet can make you lonely, depressed - References: <00e401bdd5c9$0b1c78c0$478f85ce default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"F-eXs1.0.X51.la3xr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21981 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frederick J Sparber wrote: > > You see this.... > > http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9808/30/cyberstudy/ Researchers appears to not accept internet as a channel to conduct cultural activities, friendships and basic human communications. It seems they see people simply sit front of computers and all they doing is to typing keys as do data entry operators (. This logic is the same to think people talk to the phone (to the machine itself), instead of accepting the phone carry the voice to t he other end to the line. They do not understand that computers can do other things than running games or accounting as they did in 80's. They can not model the internet as a new concept, they do not understand that computers becoming ultimate communication devices, not only for business but mostly for personal use. Maybe, for most of people Internet is nothing than extension of the classical media, newspapers, TV, etc. But the difference in the content between internet and the mass media is scaring the people, lead to not accept the internet as valid source of infor mation. Internet is a virtual world for many people like the Disney world. Alternately, the reason the researchers fall in this conclusion could be mostly lonely (in classical terms) people or not having local social activities prefer to use Internet. So the statistical results is interpreted in reverse. It is same to say "Opening umbrellas cause the rain" :) Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 1 11:45:04 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA15635; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 11:41:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 11:41:55 -0700 From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: [OFF TOPIC]Humor Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 18:42:58 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <35ed3dcf.478925838 mail-hub> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"uL8Iv3.0.4q3.o_3xr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21982 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The Russian reformers decided one day that Russia needed a new national symbol. The communist old garde was unhappy with the idea, and wanted to keep the old one. The reformers kept proposing one new symbol after the other, the communists rejecting all of them. Eventually after many years they finally came up with a new symbol that both were happy with. It could even be exported to the West! Boris immediately got on the hot line to inform Bill of Mother Russia's new national symbol...The Bear Market. Bill though somewhat surprised, was ever quick on his feet, and promptly informed Boris that based on personal experience he didn't think this was such a hot idea, and was sure the American people would be far happier to accept Bull.... Regards, Robin van Spaandonk From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 1 11:57:53 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA20732; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 11:54:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 11:54:29 -0700 From: BriggsRO aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 14:53:17 EDT To: vortex-l eskimo.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Over-Unity Resistors? Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 170 Resent-Message-ID: <"eBWSv.0.q35.bB4xr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21983 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 9/1/98 7:56:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ad502 iesun9 writes: << Am I to believe that at correct bias point, reistor will flip to second quandrant and start generating power? Remi. >> As I understood the news announcement, that was the claim. Bob From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 1 15:29:50 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA04549; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 15:28:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 15:28:35 -0700 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980901182547.00c435fc popd.ix.netcom.com> X-Sender: atech popd.ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 18:25:47 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Dennis C. Lee" Subject: Re: Professor(?) Searle Resent-Message-ID: <"g9WpH.0.v61.JK7xr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21984 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I'm not sure how he got that title. I use it as sort of a sign of respect and an indication the I want to learn. At 07:18 AM 9/1/98 -0700, you wrote: >Will some one please inform me on how Searle became >a professor. Please name the institution. >Best, >Ron Kita >...as of a few years ago, I knew of no such title. > > > > >_________________________________________________________ >DO YOU YAHOO!? >Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > > Tall Ships http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 1 15:53:15 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA14008; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 15:52:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 15:52:04 -0700 Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 18:52:02 -0400 From: Soo Subject: Internet can make you lonely, depressed - Sender: Soo To: "INTERNET:vortex-l eskimo.com" Message-ID: <199809011852_MC2-5812-3171 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id PAA13991 Resent-Message-ID: <"jFlhP3.0.oQ3.Jg7xr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21985 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I don't agree. Viewing too much CNN can make you lonely and depressed, however. I've met lots of people via the Internet. I have to admit that most of them are lacking something in their lives but only on a level that a non-Internet human might consider sad....and who's to say that view is so valid...what does the non-Internettie have going for him/her that elevates them above the norm, and would they recognise the difference if it bit them on the backside? We're all just these people, y'know. There's always another way to look at things. On the subject of, say, love at first sight, Chris Tinsley used to say that he regarded the "eyes meeting across a crowded bar room" as the worst possible way to decide someone would make a good life companion, but the majority seem determined to continue doing it. - Soo From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 1 16:19:42 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA22769; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 16:18:38 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 16:18:38 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980901182035.00d589fc mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 18:20:35 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Oscilloscopes (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19980901111853.00d5902c mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"mzDI13.0.hZ5.D38xr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21986 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:03 9/1/98 -0700, Jim Ostrowski wrote: >Suppose one wanted to use an analog scope , dual trace to monitor the >output of a frequency sweeping generator at channel 1 and a phase shifted >rendition of the same at channel 2 . Even if the frequency sweep is only >a few kilocycles how would one's eyes keep up with what is going on? > >Gotta use a digital for that I think so you could "freeze" the action >somehow. I think that's right, Jim. There definitely are situations that require some kind of one-shot recording. In the old analog-only days, guys used scope cameras for that. 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 Sep 1 18:50:31 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA19271; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 18:48:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 18:48:47 -0700 From: John Logajan Message-Id: <199809020149.UAA12601 mirage.skypoint.com> Subject: Re: Internet can make you lonely, depressed - In-Reply-To: <199809011852_MC2-5812-3171 compuserve.com> from Soo at "Sep 1, 98 06:52:02 pm" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 20:49:50 -0500 (CDT) 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: <"WjFz_1.0._i4._FAxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21987 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Soo wrote: > There's always another way to look at things. On the subject of, say, love > at first sight, Chris Tinsley used to say that he regarded the "eyes > meeting across a crowded bar room" as the worst possible way to decide > someone would make a good life companion, but the majority seem determined > to continue doing it. Noble thoughts, but at odds with the way evolution has inclined us. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 651-633-8928 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 1 19:25:28 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA31190; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 19:24:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 19:24:41 -0700 Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 19:25:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Ostrowski To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Subject: Re: Oscilloscopes (fwd) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980901182035.00d589fc mail.eden.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"GcSnN2.0.Bd7.enAxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21988 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, Scott Little wrote: > At 10:03 9/1/98 -0700, Jim Ostrowski wrote: > > >Suppose one wanted to use an analog scope , dual trace to monitor the > >output of a frequency sweeping generator at channel 1 and a phase shifted > >rendition of the same at channel 2. Even if the frequency sweep is only > >a few kilocycles how would one's eyes keep up with what is going on? > > > >Gotta use a digital for that I think so you could "freeze" the action > >somehow. > > I think that's right, Jim. There definitely are situations that require > some kind of one-shot recording. In the old analog-only days, guys used > scope cameras for that. Even if you have repeating phase shifts I don't think a scope camera would be adequate. I forget what the quickest shutter speed on a scope camera is, but my guess is on the order of 1 millisecond or so. Lousy resolution for phase shifts occurring maybe 3 of orders of magnitude faster. On the other hand Jameco (1-800-831-4242) has a 32 megasample/sec PC scope with the following features: FFT spectrum analyzer up to 16 mhz. Transient signal recorder True RMS readout One year warranty $299 including Dos software Requirements: 800 ma 12 power supply (forget that - tap off your computer's 12 v line). 386 microprcessor or higher , vga display card and mouse Vacant parallel port, 25 pin Probes not included apparently Jameco Item # 139678 ------------------------------------------- Honest, I'm not a Jameco salesman :^) Jim Ostrowski From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 1 19:57:17 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA12133; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 19:56:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 19:56:15 -0700 Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 19:57:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Ostrowski To: Vortex-L Subject: Re: CNN - Research suggests virus may play role in depression In-Reply-To: <00e501bdd5c9$0c4a9880$478f85ce default> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"NtDpp3.0.Uz2.EFBxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21989 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Is this the depression of the Y2k caused by the disgruntled Fortran programmer in 1969 ? I can just se this guy , hacking away at his keyboard at IBM in San Jose, way back then... "FOOLS! I'll destroy them ALL! Bwooohahahahaha!" Jim O. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 1 20:56:10 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA01149; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 20:55:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 20:55:33 -0700 Message-ID: <35ECD1D5.3768 gold.globalcafe.co.uk> Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 05:05:34 +0000 From: democracy gold.globalcafe.co.uk (Conference Organisers) Reply-To: democracy gold.globalcafe.co.uk X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: [Fwd: Info on new DOE Secretary] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"2C4LA3.0.gH.p6Cxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21990 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Sirs, thought this might be interesting news. John Allan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 1 22:09:54 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA01779; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 22:07:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 22:07:15 -0700 From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Fuel efficiency Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 05:08:07 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <35ecd271.516989082 mail-hub> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"JVT2r1.0.iR.2ADxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21991 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: http://www.batsupercar.com/press.htm Regards, Robin van Spaandonk From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 00:24:32 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA02429; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 00:18:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 00:18:40 -0700 Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:17:44 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Over-Unity Resistors? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Remi Cornwall Resent-Message-ID: <"3BYnd2.0.ob.F5Fxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21992 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: No that could be different. But you cannot tell me that common or garden resistors have some special operating point understandard conditions. Where is this point? Why do they always seem to burnout before reaching it :) On Tue, 1 Sep 1998 BriggsRO aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 9/1/98 7:56:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ad502 iesun9 > writes: > > << Am I to believe that at correct bias point, > reistor will flip to second quandrant and start generating power? > Remi. >> > > As I understood the news announcement, that was the claim. > > Bob > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 01:01:05 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA09858; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 00:51:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 00:51:59 -0700 Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:50:49 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Internet can make you lonely, depressed - In-Reply-To: <199809020149.UAA12601 mirage.skypoint.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Remi Cornwall Resent-Message-ID: <"gupsx3.0.yP2.VaFxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21993 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Bah! Humbug! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 01:23:45 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA17577; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 01:19:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 01:19:11 -0700 Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 09:18:15 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Oscilloscopes (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Remi Cornwall Resent-Message-ID: <"hk67m1.0.RI4.-zFxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21994 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Haven't been following this thread that much 'xcuse the dillatantism. What about a delay line coupled to a regenerative amp so the signal gets sent around in a loop. Capture data then slow loop speed and recycle signal to make period. I bet a certain analog ee knows this stuff people did before digital scopes. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 01:59:48 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA25339; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 01:58:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 01:58:54 -0700 Message-ID: <35ED075A.6871 sprintmail.com> Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 02:52:42 -0600 From: "Frederick J. Sparber" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Joule's law X-URL: file:///C:\EB/_1.htm#first_hit Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------60DE71AF733" Resent-Message-ID: <"SH1y3.0.oB6.DZGxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21995 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. --------------60DE71AF733 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit file:///C:\EB/_1.htm#first_hit --------------60DE71AF733 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="_1.htm" Britannica CD Help Joule's law, in electricity, mathematical description of the rate at which resistance in a circuit converts electric energy into heat energy. The English physicist James Prescott Joule discovered in 1840 that the amount of heat per second that develops in a wire carrying a current is proportional to the electrical resistance of the wire and the square of the current. He determined that the heat evolved per second is equivalent to the electric power absorbed, or the power loss. A quantitative form of Joule's law is that the heat evolved per second, or the electric power loss, P, equals the current I squared times the resistance R, or P = I[{sup 2}]R. The power P has units of watts, or joules per second, when the current is expressed in amperes and the resistance in ohms. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright (c) 1995 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All Rights Reserved ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Related Propaedia Topics: Thermal effect: resistance heating Thermoelectric effects: phenomena in which electric energy is transformed into thermal energy or vice versa; e.g., Seebeck effect, Peltier effect, Kelvin effect [Image] Show Index links. --------------60DE71AF733-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 02:01:09 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA25991; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 02:00:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 02:00:15 -0700 Message-ID: <35ED07DB.3E96 sprintmail.com> Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 02:54:51 -0600 From: "Frederick J. Sparber" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: phonon X-URL: file:///C:\EB/_3.htm#first_hit Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------6731665A3E15" Resent-Message-ID: <"HuaV_1.0.1M6.UaGxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21996 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. --------------6731665A3E15 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit file:///C:\EB/_3.htm#first_hit --------------6731665A3E15 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="_3.htm" Britannica CD Help phonon, in solid-state physics, quantum of lattice vibrational energy. In analogy to a photon (a quantum of light), the phonon can be viewed as a wave packet with particle-like properties. Its behaviour characteristics determine or affect various properties of solids. The concept of the phonon is, for example, particularly useful in the theory of the thermal conductivity of insulators. It has been found that ionic crystals are better thermal insulators than metals. In such a crystal, so-called anharmonic forces exist that cause different phonons to interact with one another. This interaction in turn enables the phonons to transmit heat energy to the crystal as a whole, resulting in the establishment of a smooth temperature variation throughout the solid. Phonons also provide a basis for understanding the property of superconductivity in certain metals. In most metallic solids phonons, along with impurities, scatter individual electrons. Under certain conditions, however, the interaction between phonons and electrons has quite a different effect and leads to an interaction between the electrons themselves. This action couples together electrons with energies near the Fermi level. At temperatures near absolute zero (-273.15[{degree}] C), its effects are sufficient to cause these electrons to move as a coherent group through the medium. Thus, after an electric current has been set up, phonons must produce a change in the motion of the entire group of coupled electrons rather than simply scatter individual electrons. Because the relatively weak, thermally excited phonons are not able to do so, they move through the lattice without scattering. As a consequence, a current set up in the material persists indefinitely, and the metal becomes a superconductor of zero resistance. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright (c) 1995 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All Rights Reserved ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Related Propaedia Topics: Properties of ionic crystals Metal surface phenomena: thermionic and field emission of electrons, electron tunneling, photoemission, and interband transitions [Image] Show Index links. --------------6731665A3E15-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 02:02:43 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA27407; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 02:01:45 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 02:01:45 -0700 Message-ID: <35ED0835.6DE6 sprintmail.com> Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 02:56:21 -0600 From: "Frederick J. Sparber" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: resistivity X-URL: file:///C:\EB/_5.htm#first_hit Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------A8A74F81B8C" Resent-Message-ID: <"7d_ns1.0.8i6.ubGxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21997 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. --------------A8A74F81B8C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit file:///C:\EB/_5.htm#first_hit --------------A8A74F81B8C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="_5.htm" Britannica CD Help resistivity, electrical resistance of a conductor of unit cross-sectional area and unit length. A characteristic property of each material, resistivity is useful in comparing various materials on the basis of their ability to conduct electric currents. High resistivity designates poor conductors. Resistivity, commonly symbolized by the Greek letter rho, [{rho}], is quantitatively equal to the resistance R of a specimen such as a wire, multiplied by its cross-sectional area A, and divided by its length l; [{rho}]= RA/l. The unit of resistance is the ohm. In the metre-kilogram-second (mks) system, the ratio of area in square metres to length in metres simplifies to just metres. Thus, in the metre-kilogram-second system, the unit of resistivity is ohm-metre. If lengths are measured in centimetres, resistivity may be expressed in units of ohm-centimetre. The resistivity of an exceedingly good electrical conductor, such as hard-drawn copper, at 20[{degree}] C (68[{degree}] F) is 1.77 {times} 10{sup -}[{sup 8}] ohm-metre, or 1.77 {times} 10{sup -}[{sup 6}] ohm-centimetre. At the other extreme, electrical insulators have resistivities in the range 10 [{sup 1}] [{sup 2}]to 10 [{sup 2}] [{sup 0}]ohm-metres. The value of resistivity depends also on the temperature of the material; tabulations of resistivities usually list values at 20[{degree}] C. Resistivity of metallic conductors generally increases with a rise in temperature; but resistivity of semiconductors, such as carbon and silicon, generally decreases with temperature rise. Conductivity is the reciprocal of resistivity, and it, too, characterizes materials on the basis of how well electric current flows in them. The metre-kilogram-second unit of conductivity is mho per metre, or ampere per volt-metre. Good electrical conductors have high conductivities and low resistivities. Good insulators, or dielectrics, have high resistivities and low conductivities. Semiconductors have intermediate values of both. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright (c) 1995 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All Rights Reserved ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Related Propaedia Topics: General phenomena of moving electric charges: definitions of electric quantities and their units [Image] Show Index links. --------------A8A74F81B8C-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 02:06:09 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA28827; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 02:05:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 02:05:21 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <35ECD1D5.3768 gold.globalcafe.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 23:04:18 -1000 To: Vortex-L From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: [Fwd: Info on new DOE Secretary] Resent-Message-ID: <"Ep7-R2.0.G27.GfGxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21998 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Sirs, > >thought this might be interesting news. > >John Allan Well as they say... in this case, no news is good news. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 02:15:14 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA29910; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 02:11:38 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 02:11:38 -0700 Message-ID: <019e01bdd650$f11ed7a0$478f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Subject: Re: [Fwd: Info on new DOE Secretary] Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 03:06:11 -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: <"H58jn.0.GJ7.AlGxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21999 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Rick Monteverde To: Vortex-L Date: Wednesday, September 02, 1998 3:06 AM Subject: Re: [Fwd: Info on new DOE Secretary] LOL! You have to read between the lines, Rick. :-) Regards, Frederick Rick wrote: > > >>Sirs, >> >>thought this might be interesting news. >> >>John Allan > > > >Well as they say... in this case, no news is good news. > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 02:25:24 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA31714; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 02:24:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 02:24:40 -0700 Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:23:44 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Joule's law In-Reply-To: <35ED075A.6871 sprintmail.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Remi Cornwall Resent-Message-ID: <"I0P4i2.0.Sl7.OxGxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22000 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Yeah, but it so basic, how can anyone get their name attached to that! I remember a teacher going over semiconductor physics saying (in a heavy Yorkshire accent) - 'Fick's Law, of course the rate of diffusion is propotional to the gradient' (er, he forgot to add bollocks! but it was implied, er, I think it should have been called his law :) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 02:41:45 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA01574; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 02:40:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 02:40:51 -0700 Message-ID: <01ab01bdd655$0587ec00$478f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Joule's law Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 03:35:24 -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: <"wKlIO1.0.UO.YAHxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22001 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wednesday, September 02, 1998 3:26 AM Subject: Re: Joule's law It's all "basic" Remi. :-) But the question, Over-Unity Resistors? Still stands. If you take a 1.000 ohm carbon resistor and put it in 100 milliliters of water at 25 C , and a 1.000 ohm resistance copper wire in 100 milliliters of water at 25 C and run 1.000 volts at 1.000 amperes through each, do you get the same temperature rise in the same time? If not, there MAY be ZPE Pumping in one of them. This could explain a lot of things about the CF cell and other o-u effects. Best, Frederick Remi wrote: >Yeah, but it so basic, how can anyone get their name attached to that! I >remember a teacher going over semiconductor physics saying (in a heavy >Yorkshire accent) - 'Fick's Law, of course the rate of diffusion is >propotional to the gradient' (er, he forgot to add bollocks! but it was >implied, er, I think it should have been called his law :) > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 02:43:39 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA02625; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 02:42:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 02:42:41 -0700 Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:41:46 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: Info on new DOE Secretary] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Remi Cornwall Resent-Message-ID: <"u-e9E3.0.qe.GCHxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22002 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John, you give them a length of rope they're gonna hang you boy! You must have forgotten to include something as an attachment or cut and paste. Impartially, as ever. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 03:10:09 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA05641; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 03:09:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 03:09:33 -0700 Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 11:08:39 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Joule's law In-Reply-To: <01ab01bdd655$0587ec00$478f85ce default> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Remi Cornwall Resent-Message-ID: <"nnHD82.0.3O1.SbHxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22003 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: No! It depends on how fast the resistor can conduct that heat away! Conductivities and surface areas. How you fit ou into this is beyond me. Euclidate oh brother, Euclidate! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 03:11:19 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA06172; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 03:10:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 03:10:24 -0700 Message-ID: <35ED181C.1C00 sprintmail.com> Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 04:04:12 -0600 From: "Frederick J. Sparber" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: polaron X-URL: file:///C:\EB/_7.htm#first_hit Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------2093C357276" Resent-Message-ID: <"7ZIHq1.0.FW1.GcHxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22004 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. --------------2093C357276 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit file:///C:\EB/_7.htm#first_hit --------------2093C357276 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="_7.htm" Britannica CD Help polaron, electron moving through the constituent atoms of a solid material, causing the neighbouring positive charges to shift toward it and the neighbouring negative charges to shift away. This distortion of the regular position of electrical charges constitutes a region of polarization that travels along with the moving electron. After the electron passes, the region returns to normal. An electron accompanied by this kind of electrical displacement of neighbouring charges constitutes a polaron. A polaron behaves as a negatively charged particle with a mass greater than that of an isolated electron because of its interaction with the surrounding atoms of the solid. The effect is most pronounced in ionic solids, composed of positively and negatively charged atoms called ions, because the forces between the electron and ions are strong. The strength of these forces is reflected in the mass of the polaron. In common table salt, or sodium chloride, the mass of a polaron is more than twice the mass of a free electron. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright (c) 1995 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All Rights Reserved ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Related Propaedia Topics: Polarizing and diffusion properties and the nature of ionic conduction [Image] Show Index links. --------------2093C357276-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 03:24:47 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA09170; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 03:22:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 03:22:37 -0700 Message-ID: <01be01bdd65a$da18c8e0$478f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Joule's law Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 04:17:05 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Resent-Message-ID: <"iQZff.0.CF2.inHxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22005 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wednesday, September 02, 1998 4:11 AM Subject: Re: Joule's law, Over-Unity Resistors? I don't elucidate on Wednesdays. There are certain privileges that go with asking a question. :-) However, consider ZPE extraction as being a result of molecular agitation/collisions (at any energy level) , then resistivity/lattice vibrations or phonon-electron scattering MAY facilitate the production of "o-u" heat. Regards, Frederick Remi wrote: >No! It depends on how fast the resistor can conduct that heat away! >Conductivities and surface areas. How you fit ou into this is beyond me. >Euclidate oh brother, Euclidate! > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 03:49:50 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA13833; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 03:47:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 03:47:18 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980902063955.009d5100 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 06:39:55 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Joule's law In-Reply-To: <01be01bdd65a$da18c8e0$478f85ce default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"BdlCU1.0.2O3.r8Ixr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22006 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Remi wrote: >>No! It depends on how fast the resistor can conduct that heat away! >>Conductivities and surface areas. How you fit ou into this is beyond me. >>Euclidate oh brother, Euclidate! At 04:17 AM 9/2/98 -0600, Frederick wrote: >I don't elucidate on Wednesdays. There are certain privileges that go with >asking a question. :-) > >However, consider ZPE extraction as being a result of molecular >agitation/collisions (at any energy level) , then resistivity/lattice >vibrations or phonon-electron scattering MAY facilitate the production of >"o-u" heat. Remi is correct on this. Fred appears to be confusing normal processes, including (perhaps) ZPE(lattice) with the bogus ZPE(vacuum). Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 03:54:21 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA15646; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 03:53:38 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 03:53:38 -0700 Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 11:52:43 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Joule's law In-Reply-To: <01be01bdd65a$da18c8e0$478f85ce default> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Remi Cornwall Resent-Message-ID: <"QcD0M.0.Mq3.nEIxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22007 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Frederick J Sparber wrote: > -----Original Message----- > I don't elucidate on Wednesdays. There are certain privileges that go with > asking a question. :-) Nor Mondays, Nor Tuesdays.... > However, consider ZPE extraction as being a result of molecular > agitation/collisions (at any energy level) , then resistivity/lattice > vibrations or phonon-electron scattering MAY facilitate the production of > "o-u" heat. > > Regards, Frederick You'll be tickling state space next. > Remi wrote: > > >No! It depends on how fast the resistor can conduct that heat away! > >Conductivities and surface areas. How you fit ou into this is beyond me. > >Euclidate oh brother, Euclidate! > > Device temp ramps up until it can fufil heat conduction eqn. Enough. I'm getting bored. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 03:59:29 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA17066; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 03:57:08 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 03:57:08 -0700 Message-ID: <01dc01bdd65f$add50d20$478f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Joule's law Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 04:51:38 -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: <"SwY7k1.0.UA4.4IIxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22008 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Mitchell Swartz To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wednesday, September 02, 1998 4:50 AM Subject: Re: Joule's law An Olde Proverb: "There is no such thing as a Stupid Question, only Stupid Answers". :-) Hope this helps. Regards, Frederick Mitch wrote: > >>Remi wrote: > >>>No! It depends on how fast the resistor can conduct that heat away! >>>Conductivities and surface areas. How you fit ou into this is beyond me. >>>Euclidate oh brother, Euclidate! > >At 04:17 AM 9/2/98 -0600, Frederick wrote: > >>I don't elucidate on Wednesdays. There are certain privileges that go with >>asking a question. :-) >> >>However, consider ZPE extraction as being a result of molecular >>agitation/collisions (at any energy level) , then resistivity/lattice >>vibrations or phonon-electron scattering MAY facilitate the production of >>"o-u" heat. > > > > Remi is correct on this. > > Fred appears to be confusing normal processes, >including (perhaps) ZPE(lattice) with the bogus ZPE(vacuum). > > Mitchell Swartz > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 04:00:38 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA18414; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 03:59:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 03:59:54 -0700 Message-ID: <01e101bdd660$0fc030a0$478f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Joule's law Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 04:54:25 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Resent-Message-ID: <"aGV9e1.0.aV4.fKIxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22009 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wednesday, September 02, 1998 4:55 AM Subject: Re: Joule's law Remi wrote: >On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Frederick J Sparber wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> I don't elucidate on Wednesdays. There are certain privileges that go with >> asking a question. :-) > >Nor Mondays, Nor Tuesdays.... > >> However, consider ZPE extraction as being a result of molecular >> agitation/collisions (at any energy level) , then resistivity/lattice >> vibrations or phonon-electron scattering MAY facilitate the production of >> "o-u" heat. >> >> Regards, Frederick > >You'll be tickling state space next. > >> Remi wrote: >> >> >No! It depends on how fast the resistor can conduct that heat away! >> >Conductivities and surface areas. How you fit ou into this is beyond me. >> >Euclidate oh brother, Euclidate! >> > >Device temp ramps up until it can fufil heat conduction eqn. >Enough. I'm getting bored. More like BORING. Have a nice day. FJS > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 04:14:59 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA25611; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 04:12:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 04:12:03 -0700 Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 12:10:54 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Joule's law In-Reply-To: <01dc01bdd65f$add50d20$478f85ce default> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Remi Cornwall Resent-Message-ID: <"7ybbu.0.2G6.2WIxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22010 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Frederick J Sparber wrote: > An Olde Proverb: "There is no such thing as a Stupid Question, only Stupid > Answers". :-) > > Hope this helps. Regards, Frederick > Some big questions have stupid answers. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 04:20:30 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA30250; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 04:19:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 04:19:39 -0700 Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 12:18:43 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Joule's law In-Reply-To: <01e101bdd660$0fc030a0$478f85ce default> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Remi Cornwall Resent-Message-ID: <"YRWOC3.0.ZO7.AdIxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22011 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Frederick J Sparber wrote: > >Enough. I'm getting bored. > > More like BORING. But not boorish. > > Have a nice day. > > FJS > > > > Yes EB on CD is excellent value. I'd gladly sacrifice social activities (not hygenic ones) for it. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 04:39:05 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA02747; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 04:38:27 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 04:38:27 -0700 Message-ID: <01fe01bdd665$734e6380$478f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Joule's law Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 05:32:58 -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: <"PSC6J3.0.lg.puIxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22012 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wednesday, September 02, 1998 5:21 AM Subject: Re: Joule's law Remi wrote: >On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Frederick J Sparber wrote: > >> >Enough. I'm getting bored. >> >> More like BORING. > >But not boorish. >> >> Have a nice day. >> >> FJS >> > >> > >Yes EB on CD is excellent value. I'd gladly sacrifice social activities >(not hygenic ones) for it. An incredible tool, well worth the ($500.00) investment, but you just wait until my McGraw-Hill, Encyclopedia of Science and Technology CD($800.00) gets in this week. :-) Best, Frederick > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 05:33:24 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA16343; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 05:30:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 05:30:29 -0700 Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 13:29:29 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Joule's law In-Reply-To: <01fe01bdd665$734e6380$478f85ce default> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Remi Cornwall Resent-Message-ID: <"8UEvH3.0.G_3.afJxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22013 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I'd get both. Version forlinux I wonder? From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 05:39:29 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA18617; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 05:38:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 05:38:32 -0700 Message-ID: <021601bdd66d$d7520d20$478f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Subject: Welcome to Britannica Online (http://www.eb.com/) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 06:32:54 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0018_01BDD63B.846EA460" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Resent-Message-ID: <"OBNDc.0.kY4.7nJxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22014 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01BDD63B.846EA460 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://www.eb.com/ ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01BDD63B.846EA460 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Welcome to Britannica Online.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Welcome to Britannica Online.url" [InternetShortcut] URL=http://www.eb.com/ Modified=A0AE78856DD6BD014C ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01BDD63B.846EA460-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 05:49:58 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA21115; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 05:45:50 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 05:45:50 -0700 Message-ID: <024a01bdd66e$d95c66a0$478f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Subject: McGraw-Hill | Multimedia Encyclopedia of Science & Technology (http://www.pbg.m Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 06:37:58 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002A_01BDD63C.395FBF80" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Resent-Message-ID: <"IB27p3.0.m95.ztJxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22015 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01BDD63C.395FBF80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://www.pbg.mcgraw-hill.com/newmedia/mest/mest-home.html ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01BDD63C.395FBF80 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="McGraw-Hill Multimedia Encyclopedia of Science & Technology.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="McGraw-Hill Multimedia Encyclopedia of Science & Technology.url" [InternetShortcut] URL=http://www.pbg.mcgraw-hill.com/newmedia/mest/mest-home.html Modified=007212726ED6BD01F8 ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01BDD63C.395FBF80-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 06:09:29 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA24934; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 05:58:43 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 05:58:43 -0700 Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 13:57:44 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: McGraw-Hill | Multimedia Encyclopedia of Science & Technology (http://www.pbg.m In-Reply-To: <024a01bdd66e$d95c66a0$478f85ce default> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Remi Cornwall Resent-Message-ID: <"qMuPM3.0.V56.24Kxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22016 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Great, thanks for the refs. Can't check them at the mo. Certainly use both in paper form as well as Merck index, RS and so on. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 06:33:26 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA15368; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 06:31:00 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 06:31:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <35ED466D.5C75FB7B verisoft.com.tr> Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 16:21:49 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Oscilloscopes (fwd) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"bx5tJ.0.2m3.IYKxr" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22017 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jim Ostrowski wrote: > > On the other hand Jameco (1-800-831-4242) has a 32 megasample/sec PC scope > with the following features: > I dont think that Jameco meets a professional requirements. Sampling is not good as you lost the the thickness of the trace giving valuable information about the trancients and rise-fall times.(Tek's new "Digital Phosphor" scopes priced above $10000 do this) Also many sampling scopes are actually not sample as one think. Its take one or few samples from each cycles, and combine them with other samples taken from other cycles. If you have a non repeating signal you can obtain hothing from a sampling scope. There are many tradeoffs on scope technology, This is why p eople does not giveup from TEK or from other serious brands. When TEK say it is 100MHz, you can see a signal of 100MHz with full details(with high order of harmonics) without 10x, others brands cant do this. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 06:52:06 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA08523; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 06:42:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 06:42:16 -0700 Message-ID: <35ED4A4E.CB277567 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 16:38:22 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Oscilloscopes (fwd) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"NPLzl3.0.y42.uiKxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22018 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Kyle, To learn more about (XYZ's of) scopes goto http://www.tek.com/Measurement/App_Notes/XYZs/index.html Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 07:09:26 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA19706; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 07:02:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 07:02:16 -0700 X-AirNote: 1 X-AIGTO: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-ID: <01BDD651.195A8660 56K-158.MaxTNT1.pdq.net> From: ZPE To: "'jdecker keelynet.com'" Cc: "'KeelyNet DallasTexas.net'" , "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" , "'freenrg-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: tongue in cheek Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 09:07:19 -0500 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 HAA19689 Resent-Message-ID: <"M0GIx1.0.qp4.e_Kxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22019 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jerry Decker wrote: > There seems to be something going on with the hot to cold > transition which can indeed be tapped, either by an > accumulation of ambient heat that is converted or some kind > of strange dropoff that occurs in the vortex implosion.... ZPE wrote: >> As you know, I have a lot that I could say on this, but I have >> to refrain from saying anything, otherwise I may not be able to >> shut up. 8^) Jerry Decker wrote: >To me, this sounds like there might be a nerve in this hot to cold transition thing and I certainly would like to read your thoughts and >considered comments on this subject and whether is it a key to your claim of being able to tap the vortex for o/u. I know it's been several days since your comment but I'm just now getting around to saying something. I'm sorry to say that you were reading more into my reply than what was there. My comment was only meant to say "no comment" on the grounds that there was nothing I could say without divulging secrets about the real physics at work in the vortex. This d oes not mean that you hit a "nerve" or anything. Sorry for the false alarm. Best Wishes, ZPE http://freeweb.pdq.net/zpe From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 07:09:34 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA22011; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 07:08:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 07:08:22 -0700 Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:06:23 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Internet can make you lonely, depres Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809021008_MC2-5817-8669 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"IoXUJ1.0.qN5.L5Lxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22020 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Hamdi Ucar wrote: Researchers appears to not accept internet as a channel to conduct cultural activities, friendships and basic human communications . . . It seems they see people simply sit front of computers and all they doing is to typing keys as do data entry operators . . . They can not model the internet as a new concept, they do not understand that computers becoming ultimate communication devices . . . It should be understood that these researchers were studying people, not computers. They did not try to explain their findings. This is not a theoretical treatise on the role of computers in society. They found that on average, people express loneliness and alienation in proportion to Internet use. The researchers expected to find the opposite result. They were funded, in part, by computer hardware and software companies. The sponsors must have been upset by the results! That is one of the reasons I find the results credible. Measuring feelings and loneliness is not an exact science, but it can be done, and I think it would be a mistake to ignore or dismiss these findings. In particular, I think this should serve as a warning for educators and young people. I think computers and the Internet have little role to play in grammar school and high school. This movement to bring all students onto the Internet is a mistake. There are better ways to spend money in education. Kids learn more playing in the mud than playing with computers. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 07:19:34 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA26611; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 07:18:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 07:18:18 -0700 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19980902141226.2c7f2a7e aapi.co.uk> X-Sender: jcollins aapi.co.uk X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: John Collins Subject: More gravity as a source of energy Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 15:21:21 +0100 Resent-Message-ID: <"Fr6ob3.0.iV6.fELxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22021 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I proposed that a gravity-driven machine was possible which did not require any intermediate mechanism (such as running water). I offered an explanation as to why it was possible (didn't necessarily have to operate under the strictures of a conservative force). I suggested that since it was receiving energy from falling weights it wasn't a perpetual motion machine so that chimera could be dispensed with. I mentioned that convincing evidence abounded that it had been achieved at least once before (by Johann Bessler aka Orffyreus). And the reaction? A discussion on whether we might fall into the sun; would Io turn inside out, etc! Does it not seem a little odd that the above comments do not elicit any excitement whatsoever considering that if correct they would lead to a complete solution to the energy crisis, pollution, consumption of earth's resources, anti-gravity machines, space exploration, third-world development and the world financial crisis? John Collins Author of 'Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?' - for more information and details on ordering visit my web site at http://www.free-energy.co.uk From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 07:23:02 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA27859; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 07:21:53 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 07:21:53 -0700 Message-ID: <19980902142203.1299.rocketmail send101.yahoomail.com> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 07:22:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Anton Rager Subject: Re: phonon To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"VYykX3.0.7p6.0ILxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22022 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Thanks, I've been studying Amplification by Brillioun Scattering in fiber [photonic scattering by phonons], and have had problems grasping exactly what a phonon is. Am I correct in assuming that a phonon is a name for the pattern grouping of electrons in matter [glass fiber in my case?].. ---"Frederick J. Sparber" wrote: > > file:///C:\EB/_3.htm#first_hit > > > Britannica CD Help > > phonon, > > in solid-state physics, quantum of lattice vibrational energy. In analogy to > a photon (a quantum of light), the phonon can be viewed as a wave packet > with particle-like properties. Its behaviour characteristics determine or > affect various properties of solids. The concept of the phonon is, for > example, particularly useful in the theory of the thermal conductivity of > insulators. It has been found that ionic crystals are better thermal > insulators than metals. In such a crystal, so-called anharmonic forces exist > that cause different phonons to interact with one another. This interaction > in turn enables the phonons to transmit heat energy to the crystal as a > whole, resulting in the establishment of a smooth temperature variation > throughout the solid. > > Phonons also provide a basis for understanding the property of > superconductivity in certain metals. In most metallic solids phonons, along > with impurities, scatter individual electrons. Under certain conditions, > however, the interaction between phonons and electrons has quite a different > effect and leads to an interaction between the electrons themselves. This > action couples together electrons with energies near the Fermi level. At > temperatures near absolute zero (-273.15[{degree}] C), its effects are > sufficient to cause these electrons to move as a coherent group through the > medium. Thus, after an electric current has been set up, phonons must > produce a change in the motion of the entire group of coupled electrons > rather than simply scatter individual electrons. Because the relatively > weak, thermally excited phonons are not able to do so, they move through the > lattice without scattering. As a consequence, a current set up in the > material persists indefinitely, and the metal becomes a superconductor of > zero resistance. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Copyright (c) 1995 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All Rights Reserved > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Related Propaedia Topics: > > Properties of ionic crystals > > Metal surface phenomena: thermionic and field emission of electrons, > electron tunneling, photoemission, and interband transitions > > [Image] Show Index links. > == 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 Wed Sep 2 07:28:14 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA27953; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 07:22:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 07:22:04 -0700 Message-ID: <02a101bdd67c$4ce35ea0$478f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: , Subject: Re: Internet can make you lonely, depres Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:16:27 -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: <"_dHxl1.0.gq6.CILxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22023 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Date: Wednesday, September 02, 1998 8:09 AM Subject: Re: Internet can make you lonely, depres Jed wrote: Snip good stuff... > >Kids learn >more playing in the mud than playing with computers. Great Line,Jed! So do I,"people are no damned good"! :-) Regards, Frederick > >- Jed > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 07:37:02 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA31175; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 07:33:36 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 07:33:36 -0700 From: Chuck Davis To: Hamdi Ucar Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 07:29:40 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <35ED466D.5C75FB7B verisoft.com.tr> X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.5 [020] - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck Organization: ROSHI Corporation Subject: Re: Oscilloscopes (fwd) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"i40m72.0.nc7._SLxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22024 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 02-Sep-98, Hamdi Ucar wrote: >When TEK say it is 100MHz, you can see a signal of 100MHz with full >details(with high order of harmonics) without 10x, others brands cant do this. I, recently, purchased a TEK 485, 350MHz/1ns/div, scope. I've, always, coveted the thing, since my aerospace days :) Just braggin' ;) -- .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ -/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\-- RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \ / \_/ `-' \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' http://www.his.com/~emerald7/roshi.cmp/roshi.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 08:02:54 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA09215; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 07:58:19 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 07:58:19 -0700 From: Puthoff aol.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:58:34 EDT To: jcollins free-energy.co.uk, vortex-l@eskimo.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Perpetual Motion Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 78 Resent-Message-ID: <"1x4ao3.0.vF2.BqLxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22025 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: FYI, Barnes & Noble has just reprinted and is distributing Arthur Ord-Hume's book "Perpetual Motion: The History of an Obsession." There are a few pages on Bessler's wheel that is pretty objective, that smart people observed it and it appeared to pass reasonable tests (especially the acceleration from slow speeds), but that the secret, if real, went with Bessler to his grave. The widespread distribution of this book (which discusses with pictures all the overbalancing wheel approaches) is quite a compendium. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 08:11:04 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA13182; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:09:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:09:47 -0700 Message-ID: <35ED5E6E.2A5 sprintmail.com> Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 09:04:14 -0600 From: "Frederick J. Sparber" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: ULTRASONICS & HYPERSOUND X-URL: file:///C:\EB/_2.htm#first_hit Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------6F905B195EA6" Resent-Message-ID: <"d3gPi3.0.sD3.w-Lxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22026 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. --------------6F905B195EA6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit file:///C:\EB/_2.htm#first_hit --------------6F905B195EA6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="_2.htm" Britannica CD Help [... continued from] Sound [Table of Contents] ULTRASONICS The term ultrasound refers to vibrations of frequencies greater than the upper limit of the audible range for humans--that is, greater than about 20 kilohertz. The term sonic is applied to ultrasound waves of very high amplitudes. Hypersound, sometimes called praetersound or microsound, is sound waves of frequencies greater than 10{sup 13} hertz. At such high frequencies it is very difficult for a sound wave to propagate efficiently; indeed, above a frequency of about 1.25 {times} 10{sup 13} hertz, it is impossible for longitudinal waves to propagate at all, even in a liquid or a solid, because the molecules of the material in which the waves are traveling cannot pass the vibration along rapidly enough. Many animals have the ability to hear sounds in the human ultrasonic frequency range. Some ranges of hearing for mammals and insects are compared with those of humans in Table 7. A presumed sensitivity of roaches and rodents to frequencies in the 40 kilohertz region has led to the manufacture of "pest controllers" that emit loud sounds in that frequency range to drive the pests away, but they do not appear to work as advertised. [continued ... ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright (c) 1995 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All Rights Reserved [Image] Show Index links. --------------6F905B195EA6-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 08:11:10 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA13658; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:10:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:10:15 -0700 Message-ID: <02b401bdd683$07258080$478f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Subject: Re: phonon Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:58:30 -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: <"cg9D62.0.IL3.M_Lxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22027 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Anton Rager To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wednesday, September 02, 1998 8:23 AM Subject: Re: phonon Anton wrote: > > >Thanks, > >I've been studying Amplification by Brillioun Scattering in fiber >[photonic scattering by phonons], and have had problems grasping >exactly what a phonon is. Am I correct in assuming that a phonon is a >name for the pattern grouping of electrons in matter [glass fiber in >my case?].. > As I interpret it Anton, it is more like the connection points of a three-dimensional network of interconnected springs where the springs represent the molecular bonds and the phonons are the quantized wave disturbances (caused by heat or sound)that propagate through these. Brillouin showed that light can produce sound in a material, or sound will modulate light passing through the material. C.H. Townes used a laser feedback system to generate hypersound in a glass block, strong enough to shatter it. Regards, Frederick > >== >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 Wed Sep 2 08:23:46 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA15619; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:14:26 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:14:26 -0700 Message-ID: <35ED60F3.58943063 ro.com> Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 10:14:59 -0500 From: "Patrick V. Reavis" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Joule's law References: <01dc01bdd65f$add50d20$478f85ce default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"gC30N1.0.tp3.H3Mxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22028 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frederick J Sparber wrote: > An Olde Proverb: "There is no such thing as a Stupid Question, only Stupid > Answers". :-) > > Hope this helps. Regards, Frederick > the newe Proverb: "The only stupid questions that exist are the questions you have, but fail to ask" (PR) Hope this helps, too......;^} -- Regards, Patrick V. Reavis From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 08:25:38 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA18893; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:22:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:22:23 -0700 Message-ID: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5CFD9CFA xch-cpc-02> From: "Scudder, Henry J" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: phonon Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:22:56 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"V6xsz2.0.5d4.kAMxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22029 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frederick I have used laser pulses to generate ultrasound waves in metals for quality testing purposes. We call it by the original name of Laser Ultrasound. Hank > ---------- > From: Frederick J Sparber[SMTP:fjsparb sprintmail.com] > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 1998 7:58 AM > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: Re: phonon > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Anton Rager > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Date: Wednesday, September 02, 1998 8:23 AM > Subject: Re: phonon > > Anton wrote: > > > > > > > >Thanks, > > > >I've been studying Amplification by Brillioun Scattering in fiber > >[photonic scattering by phonons], and have had problems grasping > >exactly what a phonon is. Am I correct in assuming that a phonon is a > >name for the pattern grouping of electrons in matter [glass fiber in > >my case?].. > > > As I interpret it Anton, it is more like the connection points of a > three-dimensional network of interconnected springs where the springs > represent the molecular bonds and the phonons are the quantized wave > disturbances (caused by heat or sound)that propagate through these. > > Brillouin showed that light can produce sound > in a material, or sound will modulate > light passing through the material. > > C.H. Townes used a laser feedback system to generate hypersound in a glass > block, strong enough to shatter it. > > Regards, Frederick > > > >== > >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 Wed Sep 2 08:28:41 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA22554; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:27:44 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:27:44 -0700 Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 11:25:10 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Perpetual Motion Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809021127_MC2-5830-6BE compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"UXLh93.0.IW5.lFMxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22030 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex; >INTERNET:Puthoff aol.com Hal says, "FYI, Barnes & Noble has just reprinted and is distributing Arthur Ord-Hume's book 'Perpetual Motion: The History of an Obsession.'" That's odd. I looked on www.amazon.com yesterday, and they said it is out of print. Where did you buy your copy, Hal? Maybe it is in print but Amazon and the bookstores are part of a conspiracy to suppress it! The author has written other books about music boxes. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 08:40:30 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA17798; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:37:48 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:37:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <35ED6201.E2C8ABC0 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 18:19:29 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Oscilloscopes (fwd) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"g5shJ3.0.0M4.APMxr" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22031 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Chuck Davis wrote: > > I, recently, purchased a TEK 485, 350MHz/1ns/div, scope. I've, always, coveted the thing, since my aerospace days :) > > Just braggin' ;) I had 475 once upon a time, 250MHz, I can see it 1nS pulses. Now I have not my own scope, and you dont know how I need a one just now. :( I guess you spend less than 500 bucks for it. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 08:44:33 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA29365; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:40:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:40:48 -0700 Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:41:52 -0700 Message-Id: <199809021541.IAA06490 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: More gravity as a source of energy Resent-Message-ID: <"NriPT.0.bA7._RMxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22032 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John Collins Wrote: >I proposed that a gravity-driven machine was possible which did not require >any intermediate mechanism (such as running water). I offered an >explanation as to why it was possible (didn't necessarily have to operate >under the strictures of a conservative force). I suggested that since it >was receiving energy from falling weights it wasn't a perpetual motion >machine so that chimera could be dispensed with. I mentioned that >convincing evidence abounded that it had been achieved at least once before >(by Johann Bessler aka Orffyreus). And the reaction? A discussion on >whether we might fall into the sun; would Io turn inside out, etc! > >Does it not seem a little odd that the above comments do not elicit any >excitement whatsoever considering that if correct they would lead to a >complete solution to the energy crisis, No, it doesn't seem odd at all. The reason is, the people on the list who don't understand much about physics might think that your comments are compelling and jump to far out extensions of what might be possible. But those who have studied and worked with mechanics, know that it is easy to use rotational "leverage" to cause one wheel to accelerate due to a different falling weight. What we know, is that this sort of thing is done, ALL the time, with real machines, and no signs of wierdness have ever been observed in the sense that a real test was put together and a physics lab, university, 3M, GE, etc. stood up and said, hey guys, all that stuff we learn is wrong for some reason with this device. In order for there to have been anything really going on, then the gravitational mass on one side of a pulley would have to change as compared to the gravitational mass on the other side of the pulley (this statement accounts for the reverse condition of the mass staying the same, and the gravitational potential changing from one side to the other. Either way a machine like this could run, but neither of these have been observed except in two reported, BUT NOT YET REPEATED, experiments, one in Tampere and one in Japan. Both of those experiments used high tech equipment and techniques not available to the guys with wheels and pulleys. I had a guy come to my company (I do engineering design and manufacturing and often work with inventors) who was convinced he had figured out how to cheat the system with a half cylindrical float that was going to just rotate around forever. He simply didn't understand how to balance forces. He thought it had already worked, and so well that it had bent the shaft ripping it's way up toward vertical. So he thought that with a stronger system, where it didn't rip itself apart, it would run forever. He didn't understand that the thing was just flipping upside down to equilibrium, and that no matter what he did or how much he spent on that design, that is all it was going to do. Now as for falling weights and accelerating masses, that, I assure you, is easy to accomplish. What is not, is to have the thing running forever. After the weight falls to the ground, the input of energy ceases, and the friction in the system will slow it to a stop. Look, if he showed it to people, no doubt he was trying to get investors involved so he could make a pot of money off of it. And if he showed investors a device that was spinning and reeling forever, subsequent to raising a weight one time or giving it one big kick, I guarantee you he would have received money, or else he was a moron, which I doubt. He must have been very intelligent, but not trained enough to recognize his mistake or why it wasn't really doing anything important. If you reduce friction, you can increase the rpm of a rotor, that is easy to do. Heck, if you could ride on a flat straight track on the moon, the same energy you put into riding through the park at a leisurely pace would accelerate you to a thousand miles per hour! Does that mean the moon allows you to generate OU from a bicycle? No. It means the energy losses to wind are zero, and you go that fast if you are going to dissipate the energy you are pumping into the system via bearing friction. Ergo, if you want to go fast on the ground, take note that you are losing a lot of energy to wind friction. No it isn't wierd at all that you don't hook serious thinkers just with your comments about PM machines, but you can get an explanation when you ask why not. We get a lot of email! Have fun, and if you ever get one running, then I guarantee you that funding is simple to acquire for any energy source of that genre that really does work. I would hand it to you myself. That fact, is why I for one am completely confident that all of the old versions of wheels and pulleys are just smoke and mirrors as to the amount of energy in, versus energy out. The tricky thing in the machine you mention is that he got one of the wheels to accelerate up to high rpm, leading you to think that it was providing energy. High rpm, and energy out, are two completely different things. One does not mean the other. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 08:44:42 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA29390; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:40:50 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:40:50 -0700 Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:41:54 -0700 Message-Id: <199809021541.IAA06494 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: polaron Resent-Message-ID: <"PPWRR.0.8B7.1SMxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22033 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Interesting. That is the model I use for super conductivity. The lattice atoms become phase and frequency coupled so that individual electrons moving through the lattice, surf the waves of those polarons. Super conductivity being where the individual electrons provide the "communication" to atoms down stream as to the condition of motion of the atoms up stream, meaning, the relative phase and frequency of oscillation of adjacent and distant lattice atoms. Basically, you set up a condition where the entire lattice is acting like the ribbon waves on a flag, as an analogy. though that is just one geometry of wave undulation possible. There are other more likely smoke ring vortex like geometries. But what has always bothered me is that they think that pairs of electrons are needed to explain super conductivity. I don't think this is so. I think that the individual electrons serve as the messengers that establish the momentum in the lattice by communicating phase and frequency of the lattice oscillations. JJ's in a series do this already and lead to a precision frequency standard. So it seems to me that goose and gander are both happy in the JJ and in the HTSC or other SC materials. The trick is, to get a lattice that can set up stable internal oscillations. Later, Ross Tessien >file:///C:\EB/_7.htm#first_hit >Britannica CD Help > >polaron, > >electron moving through the constituent atoms of a solid material, causing >the neighbouring positive charges to shift toward it and the neighbouring >negative charges to shift away. This distortion of the regular position of >electrical charges constitutes a region of polarization that travels along >with the moving electron. After the electron passes, the region returns to >normal. An electron accompanied by this kind of electrical displacement of >neighbouring charges constitutes a polaron. > >A polaron behaves as a negatively charged particle with a mass greater than >that of an isolated electron because of its interaction with the surrounding >atoms of the solid. The effect is most pronounced in ionic solids, composed >of positively and negatively charged atoms called ions, because the forces >between the electron and ions are strong. The strength of these forces is >reflected in the mass of the polaron. In common table salt, or sodium >chloride, the mass of a polaron is more than twice the mass of a free >electron. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Copyright (c) 1995 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All Rights Reserved > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Related Propaedia Topics: > >Polarizing and diffusion properties and the nature of ionic conduction > >[Image] Show Index links. > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 08:56:00 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA04412; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:53:38 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:53:38 -0700 Message-ID: <19980902155513.14622.rocketmail send103.yahoomail.com> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:55:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Jerry Wayne Decker Subject: RE: tongue in cheek To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: zpe pdq.net, "'KeelyNet@DallasTexas.net'" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"Mp_km1.0.n41.2eMxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22034 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi ZPE! you're SUCH a tease......hope your business plan is going well... ---ZPE wrote: > > Jerry Decker wrote: > >To me, this sounds like there might be a nerve in this hot to cold transition thing and I certainly would like to read your thoughts and >considered comments on this subject and whether is it a key to your claim of being able to tap the vortex for o/u. > > I know it's been several days since your comment but I'm just now getting around to saying something. > > I'm sorry to say that you were reading more into my reply than what was there. My comment was only meant to say "no comment" on the grounds that there was nothing I could say without divulging secrets about the real physics at work in the vortex. This does not mean that you hit a "nerve" or anything. Sorry for the false alarm. > > Best Wishes, > ZPE > http://freeweb.pdq.net/zpe _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 09:20:12 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA16300; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 09:15:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 09:15:10 -0700 Message-ID: <35ED6E2E.4491598 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 19:11:26 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Internet can make you lonely, depres References: <199809021008_MC2-5817-8669 compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"gWcuM3.0.c-3.DyMxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22035 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > > To: Vortex > > Hamdi Ucar wrote: > > Researchers appears to not accept internet as a channel to conduct > cultural activities, friendships and basic human communications . . . It > seems they see people simply sit front of computers and all they doing > is to typing keys as do data entry operators . . . They can not model > the internet as a new concept, they do not understand that computers > becoming ultimate communication devices . . . > > It should be understood that these researchers were studying people, not > computers. They did not try to explain their findings. This is not a > theoretical treatise on the role of computers in society. They found that on > average, people express loneliness and alienation in proportion to Internet > use. I am saying researchers did not taking account the social activities and communication does the sampled people on the Internet. This an intentional error, and I try to explain why researcher doesn't taking account the social activities performed via Inter net. This is same to say "People using cars travel less". What they should say "walk less". Critise the Internet does not make sense, Internet is a free communication channel. Internet does not impose any kind of usage on people, contrary of other media, like broadcasting. It is up to people to just to surf or contribute it.There are millions of millions of home pages, that ordinary people share their intellectal stuff with others. I wonder resercher even they does not inquired the sampled people have homepages or not. How do you define the loneless? But if people choose only surfing, like watching TV, on the internet, and if this can cause some psycologic problems, this can be tried to correct. > I think computers and the Internet have little role to play in grammar > school and high school. This movement to bring all students onto the Internet > is a mistake. There are better ways to spend money in education. Kids learn > more playing in the mud than playing with computers. The key is using the Internet equallly productive as consuming. In just in school times people can learn and bnecome motivated to productive usage. > > - Jed Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 10:08:07 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA04347; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:05:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:05:48 -0700 Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 13:03:53 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: More gravity as a source of energy Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809021306_MC2-582F-D685 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"HxxPH.0.q31.hhNxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22036 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex; John Collins >INTERNET:jcollins free-energy.co.uk John Collins writes: I proposed that a gravity-driven machine was possible which did not require any intermediate mechanism (such as running water). I offered an explanation as to why it was possible . . . I suggested that since it was receiving energy from falling weights it wasn't a perpetual motion machine so that chimera could be dispensed with. This strikes me as a contradiction. If the machine does not stop, and the gravitational pull of the weights or the earth is not reduced, then it ought to keep running until the bearings wear out, which makes it a perpetual motion machine. I do not understand the distinction. This sounds like the people who say that Meyer never claimed o-u, he only said he could "fly an executive jet at 550 m.p.h. for one hour on one gallon of water." If that isn't o-u, I do not know what is! I mentioned that convincing evidence abounded that it had been achieved at least once before (by Johann Bessler aka Orffyreus). And the reaction? A discussion on whether we might fall into the sun; would Io turn inside out, etc! Does it not seem a little odd that the above comments do not elicit any excitement whatsoever considering that if correct they would lead to a complete solution to the energy crisis, pollution . . . Be reasonable, John. You know why your comments elicit no excitement. It is because we think you are incorrect. We do not believe your claims. Please do not take it personally. You realize, I am sure, that your claims contradict many fundamental laws of physics. We are open minded on this forum, and I for one would be happy to modify or toss out these laws, but you must first show me *proof*, in the form of a working experiment. Your theories alone do not convince me. The descriptions of the Bessler experiments in your book do not convince me. The accounts are too old; they come from an era when science was not well established; the techniques are unsound; there is no hard data; and of course there is no physical evidence, photographs, or detailed drawings of the inside of the machine. Frankly, if the experiments had been performed last week I would not believe the results, given the poor quality of the data. People's eye witness accounts and impressions cannot be trusted. We must have replicated, widely observed, instrumented data. (They had good instruments back then.) It is very simple. If you wish to convince anyone, you must demonstrate the phenomenon. Build a machine, run it, videotape it, ship it to Mallove or Little. Then we will believe you, and we help you any way we can. You should count us as friends because we will look at a demonstration. Most people will not. Most people would dismiss you as a criminal or a lunatic. Even if your machine appears to work people will say it must be a fraud with some hidden source of energy. You could get in serious trouble with the general public. I guarantee you will NEVER get an audience with a major corporation , mainstream research organization, or government agency. You will get an audience with us, though. We will take you seriously and we are in a position to help. Get on with it! Build the thing, demonstrate it, ship it or bring it, and all will be well. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 10:17:30 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA10987; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:14:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:14:39 -0700 Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 13:08:22 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Subject: Re: Oscilloscopes (fwd) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980901111853.00d5902c mail.eden.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"mlRv43.0.Wh2.-pNxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22038 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear vo., Kyles experiment is repetative .... no problem in rep rate... 100 to 10 megs cps [or rps] is easy to do. Chop is fine for display. JHS Kyle: Find your ham! On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, Scott Little wrote: > At 08:55 9/1/98 -0700, Jim Ostrowski wrote: > > >The important thing though is that when a sample is taken from channel 1 > >SIMULTANEOUSLY a sample is taken at channel 2 by independent inputs, and > >whether the display method is chopped or alternate the timings of these > >samples are displayed correctly on the crt or computer screen. > > All the 2-channel analog scopes I've seen have separate input amplifiers. > Thus they ARE "sampling" the inputs simultaneously. It's only the display > that's not simultaneous on a single-beam scope. To use an analog scope, > Kyle will need to arrange for his experiment to repeat itself at rapid, > fairly regular intervals (ideally ~10/second). Then he can use either Alt > or Chop and see a nice picture of the timing difference between the two > signals. > > If he can only get the experiment to fire once in a while, he'll have to > use Chop (Alternate would then be useless), turn out all the lights and > take advantage of the screen phospor's persistence to read the desired time > interval off the screen's graduations. > > > > 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 Sep 2 10:20:30 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA08139; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:10:12 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:10:12 -0700 Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 13:03:54 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com, Birger.Fogelberg@studsvik.uu.se, David@bahnhof.se Subject: Re: YEP!!!Re: Academic proof of altered half-life In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980901101556.00c82100 spectre.mitre.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"9u2Vf3.0.0_1.plNxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22037 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Robt, Vo., One of Barker's patents describs just this.... making energy. My interest is in 'dumbing down' the danger of radio nuclides. Will reproduce for money! :) On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, Robert I. Eachus wrote: > At 06:33 PM 8/31/98 -0400, John Schnurer wrote: > > We were able to do this using Barkers' dry method about 3 years > >ago... not a mystery and open to anyone. > > Yep, and I keep waiting for someone to come up with a practical method > for using it to generate power. Due to the thorium decay chain, most of > the energy is released over about a five to ten year period, so this would > definitely be a base load energy source. (The two Uranium long decay > chains have elements in them with half-lives in the thousands of years, and > thorium is much more abundant than uranium, so thorium is the natural > choice for this.) > > 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 Sep 2 10:24:06 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA13603; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:20:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:20:25 -0700 From: Chuck Davis To: Hamdi Ucar Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 09:52:09 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <35ED6201.E2C8ABC0 verisoft.com.tr> X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.5 [020] - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck Organization: ROSHI Corporation Subject: Re: Oscilloscopes (fwd) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"NtLGf3.0.RK3.PvNxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22039 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 02-Sep-98, Hamdi Ucar wrote: >Chuck Davis wrote: >> >> I, recently, purchased a TEK 485, 350MHz/1ns/div, scope. I've, always, >>coveted the thing, since my aerospace days :) >> >> Just braggin' ;) >I had 475 once upon a time, 250MHz, I can see it 1nS pulses. Now I have >not my own scope, and you dont know how I need a one just now. :( >I guess you spend less than 500 bucks for it. Nope :( $800, bargained down from $895 w/ probes, from Danbar, Scottsdale, Ariz. Motorola neighborhood. Very clean. -- .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ -/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\-- RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \ / \_/ `-' \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' http://www.his.com/~emerald7/roshi.cmp/roshi.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 10:26:39 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA13767; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:20:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:20:33 -0700 From: Chuck Davis To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" CC: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 09:57:33 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <35ED7C3A.761 sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.5 [020] - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck Organization: ROSHI Corporation Subject: Re: Oscilloscopes (fwd) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"y4tvb2.0.jM3.WvNxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22040 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 02-Sep-98, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: >Maybe you can answer this; the others are just arguing about it: >Can I use a scope like a Tek 485 to view a signal that I send away and >back, and determine how long it took a phase change to propagate from >transmitter to the reciever (the reciever being the O-Scope)? I will be >passing a radio beam through an unusual setup (waveguides and such) and >need to determine phase propagation. >Thanks, >Kyle R. Mcallister I certainly hope so, Kyle. I plan to do the same thing in investigating the wierdness of the Caduceus Coil :) That thing has always intrigued me. -- .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ -/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\-- RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \ / \_/ `-' \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' http://www.his.com/~emerald7/roshi.cmp/roshi.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 10:39:17 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA21367; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:37:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:37:29 -0700 Message-ID: <35ED8174.BCBDF6A verisoft.com.tr> Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 20:33:40 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Caduceus Coil (was Re: Oscilloscopes) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"3Dvha3.0.mD5.O9Oxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22041 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Chuck Davis wrote: > > I certainly hope so, Kyle. I plan to do the same thing in investigating > the wierdness of the Caduceus Coil :) That thing has always intrigued me. Yes, I would last night a kind Caduceus Coil, maybe not the exact specs. I immediatly observed unique resonamce modes, and today obtained small ozone smell, sign of ionization of air, but with few hundred miliwats, no high voltage induced on the coil, no strong electric field around, could not investigate further becasue no scope is present. If you have a RF signal generator, you can observe these things comfortably I think, I can post the spec of my coil and the setup. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 11:01:23 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA30079; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:58:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:58:42 -0700 Message-Id: <199809021759.MAA13020 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 12:58:33 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: Internet can make you lonely, depres Resent-Message-ID: <"p6vJU3.0.nL7.HTOxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22042 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >To: Vortex > >Hamdi Ucar wrote: > > Researchers appears to not accept internet as a channel to conduct > cultural activities, friendships and basic human communications . . . It > seems they see people simply sit front of computers and all they doing > is to typing keys as do data entry operators . . . They can not model > the internet as a new concept, they do not understand that computers > becoming ultimate communication devices . . . > >It should be understood that these researchers were studying people, not >computers. They did not try to explain their findings. This is not a >theoretical treatise on the role of computers in society. They found that on >average, people express loneliness and alienation in proportion to Internet >use. The researchers expected to find the opposite result. They were funded, >in part, by computer hardware and software companies. The sponsors must have >been upset by the results! That is one of the reasons I find the results >credible. > >Measuring feelings and loneliness is not an exact science, but it can be done, >and I think it would be a mistake to ignore or dismiss these findings. In >particular, I think this should serve as a warning for educators and young >people. I think computers and the Internet have little role to play in grammar >school and high school. This movement to bring all students onto the Internet >is a mistake. There are better ways to spend money in education. Kids learn >more playing in the mud than playing with computers. > >- Jed ***{The study obviously reversed cause and effect. The truth is that people who are lonely and socially isolated are more likely to use the internet. Hence the correlation shown by the study. There is, properly, no implication that internet use *caused* the social isolation. Quite the opposite: the social isolation caused the high level of internet use, both by ensuring that these people had lots of free time on their hands, and by giving them an incentive to reach out to others, which the internet permits and encourages them to do. The people who did the study were obviously idiots to have reached the conclusion they reached, regardless of the source of their funding. If they had really wanted to determine whether the internet contributed to loneliness, they would have made some effort to enquire about whether these people felt more lonely before they began using the internet, or after. As for whether children learn more playing in the mud than playing with computers, that is simply silly, when stated as a generalization. (Children for whom it might be true--i.e., infants--would not be at a developmental level where use of computers would be an option, and those who were capable of using computers would most assuredly learn more from them than from playing in the mud.) --Mitchell Jones}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 11:14:42 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA03941; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 11:13:05 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 11:13:05 -0700 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19980902180722.2c7fb6bc aapi.co.uk> X-Sender: jcollins aapi.co.uk X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: John Collins Subject: Re: More gravity as a source of energy Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 19:16:17 +0100 Resent-Message-ID: <"Xn35Q3.0.Pz.mgOxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22044 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 08:41 02/09/98 -0700, you wrote: > >John Collins Wrote: > >>I proposed that a gravity-driven machine was possible which did not require >>any intermediate mechanism (such as running water). I offered an >>explanation as to why it was possible (didn't necessarily have to operate >>under the strictures of a conservative force). I suggested that since it >>was receiving energy from falling weights it wasn't a perpetual motion >>machine so that chimera could be dispensed with. I mentioned that >>convincing evidence abounded that it had been achieved at least once before >>(by Johann Bessler aka Orffyreus). And the reaction? A discussion on >>whether we might fall into the sun; would Io turn inside out, etc! >> >>Does it not seem a little odd that the above comments do not elicit any >>excitement whatsoever considering that if correct they would lead to a >>complete solution to the energy crisis, > >No, it doesn't seem odd at all. > >The reason is, the people on the list who don't understand much about >physics might think that your comments are compelling and jump to far out >extensions of what might be possible. But those who have studied and worked >with mechanics, know that it is easy to use rotational "leverage" to cause >one wheel to accelerate due to a different falling weight. What we know, is >that this sort of thing is done, ALL the time, with real machines, and no >signs of wierdness have ever been observed in the sense that a real test was >put together and a physics lab, university, 3M, GE, etc. stood up and said, >hey guys, all that stuff we learn is wrong for some reason with this device. JC- Yes Ross, I agree. I never suggested thast there was anything weird going on, or that what we learned was wrong. It seems to me that what is wrong is the conclusions we have reached regarding this aspect of gravity. > >Ross - In order for there to have been anything really going on, then the >gravitational mass on one side of a pulley would have to change as compared >to the gravitational mass on the other side of the pulley. JC - Why a pulley? Why not a balance beam with one mass nearer to the CoG. The beam would over-balance and the "heavier" end drop to the lowest point. In order to get it to rise, some means has to be found to bring it back towards the CoG at the same time that the opposite mass moves away. If you make the difference in action between the two masses very small, then there will be a tendency for the beam to "overshoot" under its momentum and if you then cause your masses to exchange positions (relatively) you will begin a rotational movement. Ross - Now as for falling weights and accelerating masses, that, I assure you, is easy to accomplish. What is not, is to have the thing running forever. >After the weight falls to the ground, the input of energy ceases, and the >friction in the system will slow it to a stop. JC - I could show you a means of moving those masses on the balance beam, under the influence of gravity, right now. No additional forces required. > Ross - Look, if he showed it to people, no doubt he was trying to get investors >involved so he could make a pot of money off of it. And if he showed >investors a device that was spinning and reeling forever, subsequent to >raising a weight one time or giving it one big kick, I guarantee you he >would have received money, or else he was a moron, which I doubt. JC - He was paranoid about losing the secret Ross, (like all inventors) he wouldn't part with the secret until he had the money in his sight. > Ross - He must have been very intelligent, but not trained enough to recognize his mistake or why it wasn't really doing anything important. He made no mistake. The evidence was clear and although I don't expect you to take my word for it, 20 years of research into this guy convinces me he was for real. > Ross - If you reduce friction, you can increase the rpm of a rotor, that is easy to do. Heck, if you could ride on a flat straight track on the moon, the same >energy you put into riding through the park at a leisurely pace would >accelerate you to a thousand miles per hour! Does that mean the moon allows >you to generate OU from a bicycle? No. It means the energy losses to wind >are zero, and you go that fast if you are going to dissipate the energy you >are pumping into the system via bearing friction. Ergo, if you want to go >fast on the ground, take note that you are losing a lot of energy to wind >friction. JC - Friction didn't matter a dam! He made his machine do work, so friction was just a minor factor. >Have fun, and if you ever get one running, then I guarantee you that funding >is simple to acquire for any energy source of that genre that really does >work. I would hand it to you myself. That fact, is why I for one am >completely confident that all of the old versions of wheels and pulleys are >just smoke and mirrors as to the amount of energy in, versus energy out. JC - Watch this space (said the eternal optimist)> John Collins Author of 'Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?' - for more information and details on ordering visit my web site at http://www.free-energy.co.uk From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 11:16:26 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA01419; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 11:07:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 11:07:55 -0700 Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 14:06:10 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Internet can make you lonely . . . Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809021408_MC2-5831-B4B3 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"oS2Rv2.0.3M.wbOxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22043 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Hamdi Ucar writes: I am saying researchers did not taking account the social activities and communication does the sampled people on the Internet. I have not read the full report, but I believe they did. That was the focus of the research. This an intentional error . . . That is a serious charge! You are saying they committed academic fraud, and knowingly used a skewed sample of respondents or a poorly selected set of questions. Public opinion research, social science and sociology are difficult, and researchers often do make large errors, but these errors are not "intentional." Critise the Internet does not make sense, Internet is a free communication channel. Internet does not impose any kind of usage on people, contrary of other media, like broadcasting. . . Nobody is criticizing the Internet. They are trying to objectively measure the effect it has on people's social life and mental health. I wonder researcher even they does not inquired the sampled people have homepages or not. You will have to read the paper and find out if this data was collected. How do you define the loneliness? You will have to read the paper for that too. In other studies, the respondent answers a series of questions about how many friends he has, how many hours per week he spends with friends or family, how he feels about work, family life, and so on. You have to account for unemployment, divorce, disease ect. It is tough problem. It is beyond the scope of this forum. Social science discovers statistical generalizations, not immutable laws. Some people will experience less loneliness thanks to Internet, some more. This study tells us that in general people using today's technology experience more loneliness. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 11:43:41 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA15207; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 11:41:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 11:41:20 -0700 Message-ID: <35EDACF6.212E sunherald.infi.net> Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 13:39:18 -0700 From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Reply-To: stk sunherald.infi.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Caduceus Coil (was Re: Oscilloscopes) References: <35ED8174.BCBDF6A@verisoft.com.tr> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------3F3544762D1" Resent-Message-ID: <"xU5ki2.0.Oj3.E5Pxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22045 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. --------------3F3544762D1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hamdi Ucar wrote: > Yes, I would last night a kind Caduceus Coil, maybe not the exact specs. I immediatly observed unique resonamce modes, and today obtained small ozone smell, sign of ionization of air, but with few hundred miliwats, no high voltage induced on the coil, n o strong electric field around, could not investigate further becasue no scope is present. If you have a RF signal generator, you can observe these things comfortably I think, I can post the spec of my coil and the setup. What was the type of caduceous coil you used? Did the winding start at end A, go up to end B, turn, and continue back to end A? Or was it two windings, both starting at end A, and terminating at end B? (see attached .GIF) If you used the first setup, you will just have a strangely wound solenoid coil. If you used the second setup, you have a true caduceous coil. (non-inductive) Forgive the badly rendered GIF file...I'm no artist;) Kyle R. Mcallister --------------3F3544762D1 Content-Type: image/gif; name="CADCOIL.GIF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline; filename="CADCOIL.GIF" R0lGODlhLAH0AYAAAP///wAAACH5BAAAAAAALAAAAAAsAfQBAAL/hI+py+0Po5y02ouz3rz7 D4biSJbmiabqyrbuC8fyTNf2jef6zvf+DwwKh8Si8YhMKpfMpvMJjUqn1Kr1is1qt9yu9wsO i8fksvmMTqvX7Lb7DY/L5/S6/Y7P6/f8vv8PGCg4WBRgeIiYqLjIqEgo2BgpOen46EeJmVlp 2Ye4csgJCKpiGCpamjJqeolq4rn6pzoCGgAb2zpbC6Bry/cqMsrbq1cr66EqPIyna7whm6xs x4vrTA0dTTdNnbF9jS0n3GzR7P0Nlyw+IV5u7ga9rQ6/2y6tkA4hP0+fvXDfcM9unxpv/uzl 0ycwTrmDCQoGTHhmIUMDBRFCdOeg4kSL/xfZBPRXkWPHgfgkPqQ4EuODdRtRpvQYgdzJAzNf epn5rKVLm2lqtgqJoCbPLT5LAQ06tCeFRBeEJsXi9GjDpxErSEVKtYxQpuOyao1XTCdNr2Rw /hQrkmwXsw3FOlUb5aTMpXDDPGTpE5gze/9IvIX1MR/QrUYZoC1p+J1FT3f/cij2JvDKjXkp LtRrmO+0oHJfQFaZuHFMdVj7YTY9lRlffJ7TojEZc2Jlg5stb8aFjObnXT817+yHGzKqs+GC MzuuW7VjoqHBrlyKbqy+28N3hnVZHfvzzNp5W/+OUHX36b/PAY968G3v7lxruweP9ePo8ODf vXo/np/Bpuwci/8nLxJ+ANbGW3Z9/ROMdAJKV9p/2tRh318AkaZghQFaOCCG/3EXn4b1rdYg fOVF1tZy6RTlIYAqOsheYflxSF+Ln9GSIn40ugZTctVck1dOx/1oW4FBCumdNpsgaM19u7lI 5JBOFvmkQpx1AM9ydS1hJJXdXPkFkMdYw+VNTX4ZTphrXSUBbmZygWaa662ZRZtubghnFXI6 Z2VGI9bZwp3Q4RjabonxKYOfYG015XaEuvDLCUcppuiinzCJwmAZrZenpONQWilOB85joKak GGoVZZ+Kl6mopaZ6KGscoqpqn4dxo9FqNsYqK6slecrgrbhOOuuq0CX5I6m/pjkmMMH/HquD l8ouyywOWYZwY7RKFKcrkdla2xpnrObGbRIRPqZmuEjwCK0x25r7SXP8QcpuIUiuymO8RvSn U6Ol2StEYHKlxy8RjfkbacA//AtbwQb3YBa6nS0MRFHotLQuxKfFNu18FjMsrFQVb/yBevq6 CvIOEh72ccmPbXpVyiprgF5YiL6cA2EZk0yzDRKXiGzONzR8nsY+04DwvAoPDcPAk8mHNNFL Y6xn0zPguzOMUncb9LBWX92nu8KCyDWjWb8LdtgsTAxtsi6b/WmBqT7DtthR7shg3KTMTS6d djuabMic7u2KsUiuDbiOjqZdONSpIJ640aMSHvfIgTPeuI6Q/48leOMJtpt54ps/fjnX1S4e etiS50J55SUSfrrqWro8uusgtE43oLJz03fedd9+jG26ws377Mm9DWbwIfMM85bG9448y/Uu T+XYraIG/V7nVb119V0Fqnjb2jf19KV3fQ/zro5HTT745tPWc/rb74othe5b1SrtZc8vNMYt 40//1/3z3745oQyA8oPa/giYP/ENr4AI9N753BbABmZvdV5DnwQnuMAHUu+CG2Tf+hzIwd15 a3odDKEI8SY+gpiwhLnr3r5WOCI/kQOGUxlh7U5oQiN9C1w0xE7n7tNDzKWOZ6Wzm/12VMTI DbGCNFwiE2HoROk1EXKdC14UPRjEK/82r4datGEWNQFGRgTRMosbIxk7ZUbvoNGMXdRNGtt4 xjHCUY1ypGISlVhGNtrxjXvUYx7r+McvBpKLfUzjIA2JyEQqcpH2OiIj3/et/zWwYlHh4MSK JDNQIccoxMJkC+cHKeRAaTozqiGoXuQVR2Lgjhdake/YY8pS2s4mBLKezjA3HjrBKkS7JAsl a0YcxgyHk9fp5CvnOIhLclJI1/FkTjwJRVud0UWbjCEZWdm0UNZnc3rr5Qpvk8vyeBOWhNQh LYaZyWUOT52PbKc776DKd5IsknS54C/rKUFlFrMww8Qk2pyJzGxKU43UvKY4camiSQ7UPdw8 KErGmb7indL/lRwZJzgT6r5uBPOcQDonHZ0kTP4FlI/ynB02oXjSb6Y0hysN4Uj9WNIvxVSm MyVXTW160+TlVKc7XWVLLflTewY1n0OdZFER+FJA9pQ/S2VqU0v1VKhGNR5TpWpJw4hVSrg0 q1wV41ZjkFSkhTWOQgXrURc21o8S1awsZetXk3ZWg6U1rTnbaFfB2NY9laCKnqtlp+IasDeR Lq+zNClg+SXYvxK2dHwtXGIPd9hG+hWyiz0bXWn22MlVFlibJV1k45VZ1H0WtJN91mXrGjvT FhZ/XBEtDoUaxUaNVq4/nGEdjSW52coVgrQSDBszSC8LNtFbNhufHGmDsIdl8Xop/2RgNLmH XHxysbnAde434dda6UqLuHrFGmD0tyyCeLV8xZIHqjwl3r/FZhjJDe+rXkuaWj7vhX2Zr1qt y4mBHQm/9CVv3ezb3dTczz/spe4rJWk1mYkyd0sKEQQd1Bt+3s+G/TTok3w0zZu9ZnDM5e9/ 38SipZ1FQb3M5NE+1CIUU9RXJIkuhyPYwTL5sFa9qnErlRs1AXUTiOFcrV1cLOIElk3GGC1Y iFf0OeFSMEYLsmaP71uV6sIPZwl28MxSlCFUljDEOnaylXen264dOLggNOVvOgrfM9s4y0WG EYHOOyMmcdlCNwrz2XjrU98q8MJLkk1rOboI36lSX+3pc/94jOPFUTbWCdntLYBVOsSR2Zld 8RwWkVm6aDxP2lqMgayggKo3026a05VO3mlRG9BSo2bUT8k0FqMrGdm5esxgk83tGm3Yy5gZ g3tTMOpwRDUMqU7DugP2qQh660TfUNfUg6jntpjnS+/6yz4WHZCdN20RzrnaV3PYyR69rzdr 2bEaDN+EuUthXJO73E9Mcz6DbGAW5nDK0C2zS+ckRV7b0znKtrclLY1Ced/b0h77Lba1+1yC Izjh+I4nq8NlMyn7e9/6e/XE301viwv83+au98Ypzu4lfxzj7Wb3w7mVXpGBe97X1lq2Wd5v MgcY5AEH+MxJ/kmycZu1tCbTzkH/iWdqzVpzs1Z1RpE59F4jPelsM/q7To4rdQud6WZLsmuh HqtO+4WHmL6ibL+4REnrkXK5HbsMJ3TcoNtc3ziv9BGxziy0USYkcD+Wt+N94oF3WORChvn1 dPi+6QbZ6HX/VcPcm3YRI365g29T4aMeb6lfXKEel7iSr9vyzLOd8uhWPJUZXmr7PT7rlq/4 5pGqduetfKuCEzvY1/X1cn6sPVMsemqJql7Vsr60oh29mWIPOtxL29Ow5b1rd//zp6M06U7/ XvMr7ntNSd7Uoe76toDH+OdLOfrSLz0J3c35nvP73Hr3fsi5L6mUC/Dyfud75cnP8Rfne+Th D5TcYYz5/4w73OACPCDjD6Ue/Nd/lZR4BlRwBRh5loKA7+dI6LcoSiN/p0dABANvEghAJiEx KrSA4ud5L1d+hqN8/dV+2qdpAkiCB+aAhEJseXNqYpV6ZJKCfDJ9WjJ2h6RSowJTayRINkhY h5ODPqhUOkhIOHhbd6UJPxg4SLhXMVgnS6eEW/eEuRCFymJ2RogJVWiFkvBULVhWVbVeXogY YDgZYjiGZIggZniGaAgcariGbNgWbviGcOhGckhWcMiFa0WHUKaGd2hUeaiHaMiHSMWE3TaI fmiIRKdFhdiE4Nd3bzQL7aRP/qRJ12RilPiHqFdDolRQimYrnxZ/dEZi2dFN41JGcrLUZBDl bKC2TsQUJB5lHB51iLEoi7NIi7Voi7eIi7moi7vIi73oi78IjMEojMNIjMVojMeIjMmojMvI jM3ojM8IjdEojdNIjdVojdcYQgUAADs= --------------3F3544762D1-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 11:44:50 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA16486; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 11:43:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 11:43:17 -0700 Message-ID: <19980902184650.15492.rocketmail send1c.yahoomail.com> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 11:46:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Anton Rager Subject: Re: Brillouin Scattering [Was Phonon] To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"WZC2-1.0.S14.47Pxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22046 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Got it. After your original post, that was pretty much what I was thinking...just didn't articulate my thoughts well. Cool -- Thanks What are some good refs for more info on Brillouin's work? The article that keyed me into this was a NASA Tech Brief about using Brillouin scattering for amplifying certain optical signals. This clears up some of mechanics of it for me. Once again --- another link between acoustics and photonics/RF. Perhaps Keely was onto something ;). ---Frederick J Sparber wrote: > > As I interpret it Anton, it is more like the connection points of a > three-dimensional network of interconnected springs where the springs > represent the molecular bonds and the phonons are the quantized wave > disturbances (caused by heat or sound)that propagate through these. > > Brillouin showed that light can produce sound > in a material, or sound will modulate > light passing through the material. > > C.H. Townes used a laser feedback system to generate hypersound in a glass > block, strong enough to shatter it. > > Regards, Frederick > > > >== > >Anton Rager > >a_rager yahoo.com > > > >_________________________________________________________ > >DO YOU YAHOO!? > >Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > == 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 Wed Sep 2 11:50:57 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA18442; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 11:49:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 11:49:04 -0700 Message-ID: <19980902184912.29745.rocketmail send101.yahoomail.com> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 11:49:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Anton Rager Subject: Polaron -vs- Phonon To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"bFYsX3.0.3W4.WCPxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22047 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Are phonons and polarons related? Is a polaron the action of an electron disturbing phonons? ---"Frederick J. Sparber" wrote: > > file:///C:\EB/_7.htm#first_hit > > > Britannica CD Help > > polaron, > > electron moving through the constituent atoms of a solid material, causing > the neighbouring positive charges to shift toward it and the neighbouring > negative charges to shift away. This distortion of the regular position of > electrical charges constitutes a region of polarization that travels along > with the moving electron. After the electron passes, the region returns to > normal. An electron accompanied by this kind of electrical displacement of > neighbouring charges constitutes a polaron. > > A polaron behaves as a negatively charged particle with a mass greater than > that of an isolated electron because of its interaction with the surrounding > atoms of the solid. The effect is most pronounced in ionic solids, composed > of positively and negatively charged atoms called ions, because the forces > between the electron and ions are strong. The strength of these forces is > reflected in the mass of the polaron. In common table salt, or sodium > chloride, the mass of a polaron is more than twice the mass of a free > electron. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Copyright (c) 1995 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All Rights Reserved > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Related Propaedia Topics: > > Polarizing and diffusion properties and the nature of ionic conduction > > [Image] Show Index links. > == 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 Wed Sep 2 11:53:49 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA20178; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 11:52:01 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 11:52:01 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com ) Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com Message-ID: <35ED940C.ED974930 css.mot.com> Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 13:53:00 -0500 From: John Steck Organization: Motorola PCS - Rapid Tooling Applications X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: tongue in cheek References: <01BDD651.195A8660 56K-158.MaxTNT1.pdq.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"H8Rng3.0.5x4.GFPxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22048 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ZPE wrote: > Jerry Decker wrote: > > There seems to be something going on with the hot to cold > > transition which can indeed be tapped, either by an > > accumulation of ambient heat that is converted or some kind > > of strange dropoff that occurs in the vortex implosion.... > > ZPE wrote: > >> As you know, I have a lot that I could say on this, but I have > >> to refrain from saying anything, otherwise I may not be able to > >> shut up. 8^) > > Jerry Decker wrote: > > To me, this sounds like there might be a nerve in this hot to cold > > transition thing and I certainly would like to read your thoughts and > > considered comments on this subject and whether is it a key to your > > claim of being able to tap the vortex for o/u. Jerry- The connection does lie in with the temperature differential in ZPE's "proof of concept" example. It is the same principle, IMO, underlying the Tampere experiment: temperature gradient interaction in an induced vortex containment structure. This experiment and others similar to it (from my perspective) are what led me to my current "energy" stiction hypothesis. It is the mechanism I postulate by which an "energy" density gradient is created in each case. This "energy" density gradient the culprit of subsequent abnormal obervations (pick your favorite theory to explain the observations.... ha ha ha). This is just ONE method of SEVERAL valid configurations IMO that should produce similar signatures or results. For example, CF cells accomplish the same thing IMO, but in a different manner. The energy drag comes from conductivity differential and polarity bias, the short-lived containment from electrode surface plasmoids. Instead of one big gradient, you have several small constructs. The critical elements I see are: 1) a system with which to rotationally drag "ambient energy" (for lack of a better term) 2) a vortex-type containment mechanism to perpetuate an "energy" gradient. >From there, materials and methods determine the expression the postulated "energy" gradient; excess heat, atomic transmutation, gravity shielding, etc. ....or I could be just plain wrong. 8^) -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John E. Steck Senior Mechanical Engineer Rapid Tooling Applications Motorola, Libertyville, IL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 12:05:01 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA26792; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 12:03:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 12:03:33 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com ) Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com Message-ID: <35ED96C2.3777E0D2 css.mot.com> Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 14:04:34 -0500 From: John Steck Organization: Motorola PCS - Rapid Tooling Applications X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: More gravity as a source of energy References: <1.5.4.16.19980902141226.2c7f2a7e aapi.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"hRI5W2.0.RY6.5QPxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22049 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John Collins wrote: > Does it not seem a little odd that the above comments do not elicit any > excitement whatsoever considering that if correct they would lead to a > complete solution to the energy crisis, pollution, consumption of earth's > resources, anti-gravity machines, space exploration, third-world development > and the world financial crisis? No. It would elicit excitement from me only if I got a nickle for each theory presented online that promised the same things... 8^) I have only one thing to suggest, prove it. I promise you will get more email than you can handle if you can do just that. Best wishes. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John E. Steck Senior Mechanical Engineer Rapid Tooling Applications Motorola, Libertyville, IL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 12:18:16 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA31571; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 12:16:43 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 12:16:43 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com ) Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com Message-ID: <35ED99D8.3F03F718 css.mot.com> Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 14:17:44 -0500 From: John Steck Organization: Motorola PCS - Rapid Tooling Applications X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Internet can make you lonely, depres References: <199809021759.MAA13020 smtp.jump.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"jGmBK2.0.Dj7.QcPxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22050 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The only thing making me lonely and depressed is this thread............ -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John E. Steck Senior Mechanical Engineer Rapid Tooling Applications Motorola, Libertyville, IL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 12:28:44 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA01405; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 12:25:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 12:25:32 -0700 Message-ID: <35EDB75D.4B68 sunherald.infi.net> Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 14:23:41 -0700 From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Reply-To: stk sunherald.infi.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Scope cameras? WAS: Re: Oscilloscopes (fwd) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"wSKZP2.0.tL.ikPxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22051 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Vo: Several times, I've heard something called a 'scope camera' mentioned. What is it anyways? Kyle R. Mcallister From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 12:35:13 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA04098; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 12:32:36 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 12:32:36 -0700 Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 15:30:52 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Internet can make you lonely Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809021532_MC2-5830-F62B compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"HJxUL2.0.s_.KrPxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22052 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Mitchell Jones writes: The study obviously reversed cause and effect. The truth is that people who are lonely and socially isolated are more likely to use the internet. Hence the correlation shown by the study. Possibly, but I do not think so. I believe the authors looked at trends in the lives of respondents. In other words, they tracked the history of respondents to see whether they were happier and better adjusted before or after they used Internet. I believe the assumption is that a random group of people in a given age range will not become increasingly lonely or alienated over time on average, except when there is an economic depression or some other mass calamity. That's been pretty well established, with suicide statistics for example. For every person who grows alienated, someone else is likely to grow happier. If a significant number of Internet users become more alienated over time, the Internet is a likely cause. Also, the researchers ask the respondents directly: "do you think Internet makes you lonely?" Naturally, people's memories of life before Internet are not necessarily reliable. It would be better to follow a pool of subjects over time, reinterviewing them, but that methodology is expensive. I think Jones and Ucar have jumped to conclusions about this study. It would be a good idea for them to read the study before commenting, or at least read about it, as I have done. I also think it is off topic, so I'll stop talking about it. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 12:40:30 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA05457; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 12:37:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 12:37:00 -0700 Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 15:37:03 -0400 From: Soo Subject: Re: Internet can make you lonely, depres Sender: Soo To: "INTERNET:vortex-l eskimo.com" Message-ID: <199809021537_MC2-5833-D6D4 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id MAA05430 Resent-Message-ID: <"oKe-r2.0.AL1.RvPxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22053 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John Yip, me too. So....................tell me instead about your Rapid Tooling Applications.... - Soo (desperately trying to avoid loneliness and depression) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 13:12:08 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA16603; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 13:09:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 13:09:55 -0700 From: Chuck Davis To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 13:10:10 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <35EDB75D.4B68 sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.5 [020] - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck Organization: ROSHI Corporation Subject: Re: Scope cameras? WAS: Re: Oscilloscopes (fwd) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"KUYDo.0.E34.IOQxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22054 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 02-Sep-98, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: >Vo: >Several times, I've heard something called a 'scope camera' mentioned. >What is it anyways? If you've noticed, around the scope (CRT) bezel, there's a groove. This facilitates the mounting of a Polaroid scope camera. Once mounted, you open the shutter and then trigger the sweep. -- .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ -/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\-- RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \ / \_/ `-' \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' http://www.his.com/~emerald7/roshi.cmp/roshi.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 13:19:06 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA18724; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 13:13:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 13:13:48 -0700 Message-ID: <35EDA61B.DC9555AC verisoft.com.tr> Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 23:10:03 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex Subject: Re: Caduceus Coil (was Re: Oscilloscopes) References: <35ED8174.BCBDF6A@verisoft.com.tr> <35EDACF6.212E@sunherald.infi.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"AxD2O2.0.La4.xRQxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22055 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: > > Hamdi Ucar wrote: > [snip] > > What was the type of caduceous coil you used? Did the winding start at > end A, go up to end B, turn, and continue back to end A? Or was it two > windings, both starting at end A, and terminating at end B? (see > attached .GIF) If you used the first setup, you will just have a > strangely wound solenoid coil. If you used the second setup, you have a > true caduceous coil. (non-inductive) > > Forgive the badly rendered GIF file...I'm no artist;) > Kyle R. Mcallister > In my coil windings are are parallel without spacing like ordibary windings, not 90 degree, only crossing each other two times per loop. Dimensions are 20 mm diameter, 60 mm length, wounded by 0.45mm wire (25AWG), 60 turns CW + 60 turns CWW windings. Windings are not combined at each end, in my setup until now, if you label separate windings as 1 and 2, and ends as A and B, I attach 1A to oscillator output, 2A to ground or to 30 cm free wire (or leave unconnected) and 1B, 2B left unconnected. As the frequency is in range 10-60MHz, capacitive couplings are playing role, and a complex LC circuit resonate forming nodes along the coil, typically 9 nodes are present on 30-60MHz range( I have no instrument to measure the frequency, only I guess) Due to parasitic capacitances (in my wounding scheme) it is not possible to obtain a non inductive coil, specially at RF. Rather I try profit from this capacitances to obtain some unusual results. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 13:39:50 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA31091; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 13:37:26 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 13:37:26 -0700 From: SciBorg8 aol.com Message-ID: <7dd56272.35edac21 aol.com> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 16:35:45 EDT To: vortex-l eskimo.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Joule's law Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 214 Resent-Message-ID: <"MBRft1.0.jb7.5oQxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22056 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Can someone clearly explain Trojan electrons to me? Eric From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 13:47:05 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA03791; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 13:45:26 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 13:45:26 -0700 From: SciBorg8 aol.com Message-ID: <987eff67.35edaca4 aol.com> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 16:37:56 EDT To: vortex-l eskimo.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Polaron -vs- Phonon Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 214 Resent-Message-ID: <"PZkaX2.0.9x.bvQxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22057 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I could also use more explanation of a polaron. Thanks Eric From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 13:52:21 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA06291; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 13:50:12 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 13:50:12 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980902164246.007ef170 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 16:42:46 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Polaron -vs- Phonon In-Reply-To: <987eff67.35edaca4 aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"a74mV3.0.4Y1.3-Qxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22058 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 04:37 PM 9/2/98 EDT, Eric wrote: >I could also use more explanation of a polaron. Thanks The original paper is S.I. Pekar "Untersuchungen uber die Elektronentheorie der Kristalle", Akademie-Verlag Berlin 1954 or get "Molecular Science and Molecular Engineering" by A. von Hippel, MIT Press 1959 see page 365 Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 14:14:39 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA15470; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 14:13:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 14:13:39 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com ) Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com Message-ID: <35EDB542.6B692F56 css.mot.com> Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 16:14:42 -0500 From: John Steck Organization: Motorola PCS - Rapid Tooling Applications X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Internet can make you lonely, depres References: <199809021537_MC2-5833-D6D4 compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"cz5zf3.0.en3.3KRxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22059 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Soo wrote: > Tell me instead about your Rapid Tooling Applications.... Not much I can tell outside an NDA, but in a nutshell, injection molded parts from production quality, hardened steel insert tools, in 5-15 working days from data release. I design the steel and expidite manufacturing. Keeps me out of trouble.... 8^) -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John E. Steck Senior Mechanical Engineer Rapid Tooling Applications Motorola, Libertyville, IL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 14:18:32 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA16685; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 14:17:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 14:17:22 -0700 Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 17:13:37 -0400 From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Internet can make you lonely, depressed - Sender: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" Message-ID: <199809021717_MC2-5831-BEE2 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"wz2pT3.0.c44.YNRxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22060 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Soo, >> Chris Tinsley used to say that he regarded the "eyes meeting across a crowded bar room" as the worst possible way to decide someone would make a good life companion << I think the key word here is 'bar' for Chris's law to apply. The original was intended to apply to a romantic drawing room or other similar setting. The eyes meeting in a bar could easily just be crossed! Norman From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 15:28:35 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA10569; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 15:26:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 15:26:37 -0700 Message-ID: <03ab01bdd6bf$fd41fde0$478f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Subject: The Wire - Breaking News from the Associated Press (http://wire.ap.org/?SLUG=TU Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 16:20:48 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0033_01BDD68D.A5754220" 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: <"83pIl.0.da2.SOSxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22061 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_0033_01BDD68D.A5754220 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit So much for Incandescent Tungsten as an energy source. http://wire.ap.org/?SLUG=TUNGSTEN%2dSHORTAGE ------=_NextPart_000_0033_01BDD68D.A5754220 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="The Wire - Breaking News from the Associated Press.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="The Wire - Breaking News from the Associated Press.url" [InternetShortcut] URL=http://wire.ap.org/?SLUG=TUNGSTEN%2dSHORTAGE Modified=8060DCA6BFD6BD01B5 ------=_NextPart_000_0033_01BDD68D.A5754220-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 15:50:53 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA20900; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 15:48:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 15:48:22 -0700 From: Puthoff aol.com Message-ID: <370c8eea.35edc899 aol.com> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 18:37:13 EDT To: vortex-l eskimo.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Re: More gravity as a source of energy Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 78 Resent-Message-ID: <"9B2C23.0.E65.piSxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22062 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 9/2/98 12:16:10 PM, John Collins wrote (re the Bessler Wheel Principle): <> John, if you can demonstrate the "Bessler Wheel Principle" this way, you are home free! Forget the rotational demo. (I assume that what you are saying is that you think you can roll masses back and forth on a balance beam and have it continue in its teeter-totter motion without outside applied force - if that's the case, as I said, you are home free. But as you know, this would not be expected by ordinary physics and engineering 101!). Best regards, Hal Puthoff Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 17:28:57 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA28148; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 17:26:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 17:26:40 -0700 Message-ID: <007a01bdd6d0$be20bc80$834ad3d0 default> From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Bessler's Wheel; some observations Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 20:19:27 -0400 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: <"o9VJw.0.ht6.09Uxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22063 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John Collins' book and Website have elicited some discussion, which not surprisingly invites our colleagues to see it from their usual perspectives. Of the various commentators, only Jed and myself have actually read the book, so far as I can tell. As Jed frequently states, go read the source papers, not someone's opinion about them. My review of Collins' book is in the next issue of IE. Without going into the formal citation/response format, I'm moved to the following comments. Ross is a fluent contributor to vortex, working from his particular theoretical foundation. However, his comments about Bessler and Collins are a bit glib. Collins' book is a thorough bit of scholarship in digging up the historical records and giving a coherent account of the four Wheels that Bessler built. Any evaluation of the Bessler affair must confront the following items, reported as facts from cited historical accounts: The early Wheels moved in one direction, and had to be restrained to keep them from rotating. One operated a trip hammer, repetitvely lifting a weight, without slowing. Later Wheels had stationary equilibrium, but would accelerate in either direction with a slight push. In a public demonstration, a 70 lb. weight was lifted many feet without the wheel slowing. One Wheel was sealed in a room and operated continuously (no load) for weeks. In a public demonstration, a Wheel was operated on one set of supports, then moved to another and operated, with the supports inspected to assure no hidden mechanism. Witnesses included the local nobility, with official records. Technical witnesses included Leibnitz, and a professor who was later scientific adviser to Peter the Great. One man did see inside the Wheel on payment of a sum and oath not to disclose or replicate the mechanism; this man, Landgrave Karl, became Bessler's protector. One could dismiss all of this as clever historical fiction, but it carries a flavor of carefully researched authenticity. None of this is proof by 20th century standards. But we are dealing with directly palpable effects in a time when all kinds of clockwork devices were well understood and the basic principles of machines established. We have a tendency toward temporal chauvinism, an arrogant assumption that people living a few centuries (or mellenia) ago could not have been as clever as we are. One need only contemplate the Antikythera Mechanism or the pre-BCE batteries to shatter that assumption. Why a technical civilization arose here/now but not there/then is quite another subject. Jed has defended his direct observation and measurement of a CETI cell at PowerGen 95 against many criticisms. I do no want to engage that debate again. My point is that the witnessed accounts of Bessler's demonstrations in Collins' book have the same quality of authentic eyewitness accounts of a remarkable machine. My understanding is that John is attempting to rebuild Bessler's Wheel. I wish him all possible success. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 19:13:33 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA04385; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 19:12:19 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 19:12:19 -0700 Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 22:10:48 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: [OFF TOPIC] GA Tech dating scene Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809022212_MC2-583F-D292 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"5PHaX1.0.I41.3iVxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22064 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Some of my daughter's friends have graduated from high school and gone on to the Georgia Institute of Technology. Women rarely study engineering. Two-thirds of Georgia tech undergrads are men. Many fit the Dilbert engineering geek stereotype. The women say of the dating scene: The odds are good, but the goods are odd. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 20:25:59 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA32586; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 20:24:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 20:24:18 -0700 Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 23:21:41 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Bessler's Wheel; some observations Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809022324_MC2-5838-9786 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"SysCF2.0.2z7.YlWxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22065 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Mike Carrell writes: Any evaluation of the Bessler affair must confront the following items, reported as facts from cited historical accounts . . . In the present day, during Congressional testimony people often say things about "Star Wars" technology or the hot fusion program which I do not believe. Testimony about the effectiveness of the Patriot Missile systems during the Gulf War convinced me that the experts have no idea whether any scud missiles where hit or inconvenienced. From the point of view of linguistics, the Japanese Fifth Generation Computer Project was fantasy. Newton devoted years to alchemy. Bockris and others I respect believe there may be something to alchemy, but I think it is nonsense Newton was a fool to waste time on it. Experts and geniuses may seriously discuss results, and they believe they have seen machines do this or that, but unless these results are widely replicated, and seen by many people, we cannot believe them. I cannot believe them, anyway. The immutable standard for science is replication, examination, and independent verification with instruments. Above all, we must see what was hidden under the cover of that Bessler machine. Before a final judgement is made, details of the machine must be made public and other people must replicate it. That never happened with Bessler's wheel. All we have is anecdotal evidence, which does not count. The early Wheels moved in one direction, and had to be restrained to keep them from rotating. One operated a trip hammer, repetitively lifting a weight, without slowing. If the weight was not large, or the machine did not run for long I think this could easily be fraud. Later Wheels had stationary equilibrium, but would accelerate in either direction with a slight push. This does not strike me as meaningful. Windup clockwork or a hidden crank could easily accomplish this. In a public demonstration, a 70 lb. weight was lifted many feet without the wheel slowing. One Wheel was sealed in a room and operated continuously (no load) for weeks. This kind of behavior can only be caused by a real effect or fraud. There is no middle ground for an honest mistake or an exaggerated report from the quality people who witnessed it. But I do not rule out fraud. Collins said that the machine could not be turned with a small hidden crank from another room, but I think he is wrong. I have seen crude 18th century wind up cooking spits, suspended over fires, that could turn an off center roasting sheep for a half hour between windings. I think it is easier to turn a large wheel, even with a load, than Collins thinks. I think we need more data too. How long did it take to lift the 70 lbs? How many feet? In a public demonstration, a Wheel was operated on one set of supports, then moved to another and operated, with the supports inspected to assure no hidden mechanism. I think it is difficult to assure there was no hidden mechanism. Clockmakers, toymakers, spy gear and sleight of hand magicians were amazingly skilled by 1600. One could dismiss all of this as clever historical fiction, but it carries a flavor of carefully researched authenticity. I believe these accounts are real. I expect Leibniz did endorse the thing. But, as I said, Newton endorsed alchemy, and many experts endorsed the Fifth Generation Project and other A.I. projects which I think are far beyond our present day understanding. We know as little about intelligence and language as people in Newton's day knew about infectious disease. None of this is proof by 20th century standards. I think it fails to meet 17th century standards. We have a tendency toward temporal chauvinism, an arrogant assumption that people living a few centuries (or mellenia) ago could not have been as clever as we are. I don't. I think they were every bit as clever, which is why I hold them to the same standards I hold the Fifth Generation experts today. Leibniz was a great scientist but he missed the boat on this. He should have insisted on seeing the inside by some arrangement, and he should have kept proper data. Perhaps he did, and the data has been lost to history. Jed has defended his direct observation and measurement of a CETI cell at PowerGen 95 against many criticisms. That is a good comparison! Let's look at the differences: 1. I used instruments, not only direct observation. 2. I saw inside the instrument: there were no hidden wires. It was made of see-through plastic to facilitate this examination. 3. The experiment has been replicated to some extent by others, independently. Not as much as we might wish, but U. Illinois, Motorola, and probably the French AEC have seen roughly the same level of heat, proportional to the mass of beads. If it had never been replicated, by now I would conclude that my observations were invalid or meaningless. I would retract my report, or least follow it up with a strong statement that I no longer believe CETI's claims. Experimental observations which are never repeated and never replicated elsewhere have no meaning, except in rare cases of incontrovertible tests like the atom bomb explosion. Even if I remained convinced that I saw what I saw, I would no longer draw any conclusions from it. If, in 20 years, CETI has disappeared and there are no follow-up experiments at U. Illinois or anywhere else, I will say these results evaporated, and we will never know the truth. I think the Pons and Fleischmann results are in another class. They have been so widely replicated, at such high sigma levels that they are real beyond any doubt. They may be forgotten in a hundred years, but the excess heat will be undoubtably be real until the end of time. My point is that the witnessed accounts of Bessler's demonstrations in Collins' book have the same quality of authentic eyewitness accounts of a remarkable machine. I have no doubt these eyewitness accounts are honest and real, but I think the eyewitnesses were bamboozled. I cannot be sure, of course. They may have bamboozled themselves. Think of everyone in the U.S. including most experts, watching those dramatic televised explosions in the night sky during the gulf war, and yelling "we hit another one!" What did we really see? Whatever made anyone think the flashes, loud noises and falling debris meant anything? My understanding is that John is attempting to rebuild Bessler's Wheel. I wish him all possible success. I do too. But I also wish he would refrain from categorically asserting the effect is real until he succeeds. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 21:10:49 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA13765; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 21:04:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 21:04:28 -0700 Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 23:58:10 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: John Schnurer Subject: Per HTSC, Grav...Re: More gravity as a source of energy In-Reply-To: <199809021541.IAA06490 Au.oro.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"FvlQd1.0.-M3.ALXxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22066 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vo., and all, See notes, cuts.... > > John Collins Wrote: > signs of wierdness have ever been observed in the sense that a real test was > put together and a physics lab, university, 3M, GE, etc. stood up and said, > hey guys, all that stuff we learn is wrong for some reason with this device. > > In order for there to have been anything really going on, then the > gravitational mass on one side of a pulley would have to change as compared .....> machine like this could run, but neither of these have been observed except > in two reported, BUT NOT YET REPEATED, experiments, one in Tampere and one > in Japan. > DEP DEP ... If you read ALL of the papers buy Giovanni Modanese and Eugene E. Podkeltnov then you will find that associated with the EDGE of the HTSC there is an area that has been called 'the zone of exclusion' ... in a VERY rough desription any object which is pushed into the area of modified gravity, from the side, encounters a resistance which would maybe not be unlike going up a 'hill' to get to the ~ 2 percent gravitational change... this is described in the math by Modanese and also lets us know the conservation of energy is not violated. I am NOT a math guy.... read ALL the papers.... Pete Skeggs' site is the only one still up, as far as I know.... I ran out of money a long time ago.... JHS > Both of those experiments used high tech equipment and techniques not > available to the guys with wheels and pulleys. > NO.... My replication of EE Podkletnov's work was very low tech .. > I had a guy come to my company (I do engineering design and manufacturing > does not mean the other. > > Later, Ross Tessien > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 21:12:46 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA17194; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 21:11:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 21:11:28 -0700 Message-ID: <000f01bdd6f0$2b5185e0$5d8f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Subject: CNN - SwissAir jet vanishes from radar near Nova Scotia - September 2, 1998 (ht Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 22:05:45 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01BDD6BD.D5BF77E0" 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: <"3uzuT1.0.ZC4.mRXxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22067 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_0006_01BDD6BD.D5BF77E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Don't look good. http://wire.ap.org/WORLD/americas/9809/02/swiss.crash.01/ ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BDD6BD.D5BF77E0 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="CNN - SwissAir jet vanishes from radar near Nova Scotia - September 2, 1998.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="CNN - SwissAir jet vanishes from radar near Nova Scotia - September 2, 1998.url" [InternetShortcut] URL=http://wire.ap.org/WORLD/americas/9809/02/swiss.crash.01/ Modified=200A5E00F0D6BD010C ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BDD6BD.D5BF77E0-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 2 21:31:53 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA24700; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 21:30:34 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 21:30:34 -0700 Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 00:24:19 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: Vortex Subject: For the sake.... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"x3odB.0.l16.fjXxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22068 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Vo., Theoretically, for the sake of discussion... NOT flaming, but for the design of a potential experiment...: a] one takes a transmission line, leaky at one end.... so desigend as to allow PHASE propagation at super lumal, ie., 120% C. b] then a CW 910 m cps signal is established and is directed toward a set of two semi parabolic reflectors, so as to tend to return a useful percentage of the signal to a location adjacent to the launch point c] a last semi parabolic reflector is used to focus the signal to a simple mono or dipole antenna... which is then amplified by a MMIC [monolithic microwave IC] d] the Tranmit and receive are ... robbed from a cell phone e] a KISS [keep it simple, stupid] phase shifter made from the T-R [transmit recieve] switch... ..from he same phone ... is used to slightly load the CW [continuous wave] transmission so as to be able to induce a 20 degree [or so] phase shift. f] the TR switch is toggled at, say, 49 meg [robbed from a stupid cordless phone....] and the TOGGLE signal is fed to the trigger of a 2 channel scope .... g] the return reflectors cause a path appropriate to sweep... depending on scope .... and the A nd B channel are used to calculate lag of signal.... h] measurement of path length will yield time light takes to get there and back i] if needed a divider or heterodune] is used [robbed from the phone to more easily see the phaes distortion event... Anyone got an easirer idea.... ANALOG!!!! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 3 02:33:56 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA19825; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 02:32:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 02:32:47 -0700 Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 10:00:14 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] GA Tech dating scene In-Reply-To: <199809022212_MC2-583F-D292 compuserve.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Remi Cornwall Resent-Message-ID: <"pgFnX3.0.hr4.-8cxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22069 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Plenty of beardy weirdies. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 3 03:47:09 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA30814; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 03:46:27 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 03:46:27 -0700 Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 11:45:33 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Joule's law In-Reply-To: <7dd56272.35edac21 aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Remi Cornwall Resent-Message-ID: <"14oXv2.0.OX7.2Edxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22070 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 2 Sep 1998 SciBorg8 aol.com wrote: > Can someone clearly explain Trojan electrons to me? > > Eric > Weren't they some ska/dowop group on Trojan records doing covers of r 'n' b classics. You know, men in dark glasses and suits doing the robot to an insistent driving 2/4 beat? From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 3 03:50:13 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA31886; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 03:49:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 03:49:32 -0700 Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 11:48:35 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Polaron -vs- Phonon In-Reply-To: <987eff67.35edaca4 aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Remi Cornwall Resent-Message-ID: <"DtIs3.0.8o7.xGdxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22071 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A On Wed, 2 Sep 1998 SciBorg8 aol.com wrote: > I could also use more explanation of a polaron. Thanks > > Eric > It was an ancient greek alimoney case. Tragic. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 3 06:11:32 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA01555; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 06:09:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 06:09:59 -0700 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19980903130332.23d7b4dc aapi.co.uk> X-Sender: jcollins aapi.co.uk X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: John Collins Subject: Re: Bessler's Wheel; some observations Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 14:12:27 +0100 Resent-Message-ID: <"EPhWP3.0.rN.cKfxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22072 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 23:21 02/09/98 -0400, you wrote: >To: Vortex > >Mike Carrell writes: > > Any evaluation of the Bessler affair must confront the following items, > reported as facts from cited historical accounts . . . > >In the present day, during Congressional testimony people often say things >about "Star Wars" technology or the hot fusion program which I do not believe. >Testimony about the effectiveness of the Patriot Missile systems during the >Gulf War convinced me that the experts have no idea whether any scud missiles >where hit or inconvenienced. . . . Newton devoted years to alchemy. Bockris and others I respect believe there may be something to alchemy, but I think it is nonsense Newton was a fool to waste time on it. JC - I agree Jed, but that doesn't mean that Leibniz was wrong about Bessler, and of course, even he may have been wrong about somethings. But just as you can't necessarily believe everything a respected academic or scientist proposes, so you can't chuck everything he says out. Leibniz was convinced by a number of different things which he determined about Bessler's machine, which led him to conclude that it was genuine, but not perpetual motion. > >Experts and geniuses may seriously discuss results, and they believe they have >seen machines do this or that, but unless these results are widely replicated, >and seen by many people, we cannot believe them.. . . All we have is >anecdotal evidence, which does not count. JC - Anecdotal evidence can be of varying quality and when it is supplied by the likes of Leibniz, Hoffman, Wolff, s'Gravesand and numerous others, it acquires a degree of authenticity.> > > The early Wheels moved in one direction, and had to be restrained to > keep them from rotating. One operated a trip hammer, repetitively > lifting a weight, without slowing. > >If the weight was not large, or the machine did not run for long I think this >could easily be fraud. JC - The early wheels measured up to 5feet in diameter by 1 foot thick, turned at 50 revs per minute, lifted weights of 50 pounds 60 feet into the air via a pulley. > > > Later Wheels had stationary equilibrium, but would accelerate in either > direction with a slight push. > >This does not strike me as meaningful. Windup clockwork or a hidden crank >could easily accomplish this. The later wheels were designed to turn in either direction at the whim of the examiners, to answer just that criticism (that they were driven by clockwork). The result was that they did not begin to turn spontaneously, but needed a slight push. They began to accelerate as soon as the first weight was heard to fall, to a speed half that of the former wheels. > > In a public demonstration, a 70 lb. weight was lifted many feet without > the wheel slowing. One Wheel was sealed in a room and operated > continuously (no load) for weeks. > >This kind of behavior can only be caused by a real effect or fraud. There is >no middle ground for an honest mistake or an exaggerated report from the >quality people who witnessed it. But I do not rule out fraud. Collins said >that the machine could not be turned with a small hidden crank from another >room, but I think he is wrong. I have seen crude 18th century wind up cooking >spits, suspended over fires, that could turn an off center roasting sheep for >a half hour between windings. I think it is easier to turn a large wheel, even >with a load, than Collins thinks. I think we need more data too. How long did >it take to lift the 70 lbs? How many feet? JC - We shall have to disagree on that one Jed. Personally I don't believe that that would have been possible and I speak as an engineer. The torque would have been enormous and I doubt if the materials would have taken the load anyway ( and I doubt if we could manufacture sufficient strength now). The wheel lifted the weight from the courtyard of the castle up to the roof and in through a window, via a pulley. That distance was estimated to be about 70 feet. Although the time for this was not given, it can be worked out quite easily because the other end of the rope was tied around the axle, which measured six inches in thickness and turned at 26 revs per minute. > > > In a public demonstration, a Wheel was operated on one set of supports, > then moved to another and operated, with the supports inspected to > assure no hidden mechanism. > >I think it is difficult to assure there was no hidden mechanism. Clockmakers, >toymakers, spy gear and sleight of hand magicians were amazingly skilled by >1600. JC - The wheel weighed around 700 pounds, it is clear from the evidence in written reports both official and unoffical that there was no connection between the outside of the machine and any other mechanism or structure, therefore either the "hidden" mechanism was in the bearings, hence the demonstration by translocation, or it was contained inside the wheel. I doubt that there would have been enough room inside the wheel to hide enough clockwork to make it turn for one day let alone fifty-four. > > > One could dismiss all of this as clever historical fiction, but it > carries a flavor of carefully researched authenticity. > >I believe these accounts are real. I expect Leibniz did endorse the thing. >But, as I said, Newton endorsed alchemy. We know as little about intelligence and language as people in Newton's day knew about infectious disease. JC - If you had read the reports of the eyewitnesses as I have Jed, and I know that you cannot have done because they are difficult to obtain (it took me many years), you would see that there is nothing different about these guys in the 18th C compared to now. They may have used a different language, their culture was clearly alien, but their thought processes were just the same, and they were still amazed but suspicious, and the flavour of their responses comes through quite plainly. They would have given anything to be the one to de-bunk Bessler. He was not a popular guy with the academics and philosophers and they wrote some pretty malicious stuff about him, but they were almost all converted to a belief in his machine eventually by the sheer impossibility of obtaining the results that he did in any other way. > > > None of this is proof by 20th century standards. > >I think it fails to meet 17th century standards. 18th C. but whose counting > > > We have a tendency toward temporal chauvinism, an arrogant assumption > that people living a few centuries (or mellenia) ago could not have been > as clever as we are. > >I don't. I think they were every bit as clever. Leibniz was a >great scientist but he missed the boat on this. He should have insisted on >seeing the inside by some arrangement, and he should have kept proper data. >Perhaps he did, and the data has been lost to history. JC - Leibniz did try to insist on seeing the inside of the machine, but Bessler was equally insistant that no one should see it until he had received the money. He only had the one chance to sell it because obviously once one person knew the secret in order to take advantage of it he would have to build a working model and then the secret would be out. He offered to let Leibniz see inside the machine for the total sum but Leibniz turned it down because he couldn't afford it. I have quoted from the letters Leibniz wrote concerning the wheel and you can read all the questions he asked about the performance of the wheel then. And that was before he paid a visit to examine the machine and to test its performance for his own satisfaction. You raise a good point - there may exist somewhere his personal conclusions and descriptions of his tests. I'll look into it.> > My point is that the witnessed accounts of Bessler's demonstrations in > Collins' book have the same quality of authentic eyewitness accounts of > a remarkable machine. > >I have no doubt these eyewitness accounts are honest and real, but I think the >eyewitnesses were bamboozled. I cannot be sure, of course. They may have >bamboozled themselves. JC - That is why I looked in such detail at the evidence presented in the eyewitess reports. I have to believe someone when he says "it was clear right at the start that there was not the slightest evidence of any thing connecting the wheel with any other part of the room". That is why the "detractors" claimed that the hidden connection was in the actual bearings. There wasn't anywhere else for them to place it. Subsequent examinations which included the translocation from one set of bearings to another, were described in equally unequivocal terms -"nothing of suspicion was found by any of the assembled august gathering, though we scrutinised the bearings with unparallelled rigour". And I still maintain that it would not have been possible (as was claimed by the "detractors") to drive such a heavy device for even one hour if at all, let alone the 54 days, and also do work, > > My understanding is that John is attempting to rebuild Bessler's Wheel. > I wish him all possible success. > >I do too. But I also wish he would refrain from categorically asserting the >effect is real until he succeeds. JC - Yes I am but I'm just one among hundreds. Sorry, I do get a bit assertive! It is after all only a theory - to date. John John Collins Author of 'Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?' - for more information and details on ordering visit my web site at http://www.free-energy.co.uk From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 3 06:19:50 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA05400; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 06:18:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 06:18:04 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980903091035.007ff100 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 09:10:35 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Bessler's Wheel; some observations In-Reply-To: <199809022324_MC2-5838-9786 compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"-AEjd2.0.IK1.BSfxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22073 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:21 PM 9/2/98 -0400, Jed wrote: >3. The experiment has been replicated to some extent by others, independently. >Not as much as we might wish, but U. Illinois, Motorola, and probably the >French AEC have seen roughly the same level of heat, proportional to the mass >of beads. Are you claiming that U. Illinois, Motorola, and the French AEC reported a kilowatt of excess heat? Not by my reading of their reports and spokespeople. Or are you claiming you had a kilogram of beads? Nickel light water systems have very low levels of (peak) excess heat in the ~80 milliwatt/cm2 range. Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 3 06:24:04 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA07361; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 06:22:58 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 06:22:58 -0700 Message-ID: <35EE97EF.E00014C bellsouth.net> Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 09:21:51 -0400 From: Terry Blanton Reply-To: commengr bellsouth.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] GA Tech dating scene References: <199809022212_MC2-583F-D292 compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"tp95r1.0.po1.nWfxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22074 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > To: Vortex > > Some of my daughter's friends have graduated from high school and gone on to > the Georgia Institute of Technology. Women rarely study engineering. > Two-thirds of Georgia tech undergrads are men. Many fit the Dilbert > engineering geek stereotype. The women say of the dating scene: > > The odds are good, but the goods are odd. > > - Jed If you think the guys are odd, you should see the Co-Techs (Co-eds at Tech). Terry Ga Tech class of '76 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 3 06:33:29 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA10413; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 06:30:38 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 06:30:38 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980903092304.007ffae0 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 09:23:04 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Polarons Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"2Jvv93.0.dY2.zdfxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22075 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Paper: cond-mat/9809025 From: Aldo Humberto Romero Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 01:50:16 GMT (87kb) Title: Polaron Effective Mass, Band Distortion, and Self-Trapping in the Holstein Molecular Crystal Model Authors: Aldo H. Romero, David W. Brown and Katja Lindenberg Comments: 28 pages, 15 figures Subj-class: Strongly Correlated Electrons \\ We present polaron effective masses and selected polaron band structures of the Holstein molecular crystal model in 1-D as computed by the Global-Local variational method over a wide range of parameters. These results are augmented and supported by leading orders of both weak- and strong-coupling perturbation theory. The description of the polaron effective mass and polaron band distortion that emerges from this work is comprehensive, spanning weak, intermediate, and strong electron-phonon coupling, and non-adiabatic, weakly adiabatic, and strongly adiabatic regimes. Using the effective mass as the primary criterion, the self-trapping transition is precisely defined and located. Using related band-shape criteria at the Brillouin zone edge, the onset of band narrowing is also precisely defined and located. These two lines divide the polaron parameter space into three regimes of distinct polaron structure, essentially constituting a polaron phase diagram. Though the self-trapping transition is thusly shown to be a broad and smooth phenomenon at finite parameter values, consistency with notion of self-trapping as a critical phenomenon in the adiabatic limit is demonstrated. Generalizations to higher dimensions are considered, and resolutions of apparent conflicts with well-known expectations of adiabatic theory are suggested. \\ ( http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/cond-mat/9809025 , 87kb) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 3 06:37:40 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA13469; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 06:36:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 06:36:29 -0700 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19980903132924.23d7d46e aapi.co.uk> X-Sender: jcollins aapi.co.uk X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: John Collins Subject: Re: Re: More gravity as a source of energy Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 14:38:19 +0100 Resent-Message-ID: <"Os3eG1.0.LI3.Sjfxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22076 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 18:37 02/09/98 EDT, you wrote: > >In a message dated 9/2/98 12:16:10 PM, John Collins wrote (re the Bessler >Wheel Principle): > ><under the influence of gravity, right now. No additional forces required.>> > >John, if you can demonstrate the "Bessler Wheel Principle" this way, you are >home free! Forget the rotational demo. (I assume that what you are saying is >that you think you can roll masses back and forth on a balance beam and have >it continue in its teeter-totter motion without outside applied force - if >that's the case, as I said, you are home free. But as you know, this would >not be expected by ordinary physics and engineering 101!). > >Best regards, > >Hal Puthoff Nearly Hal, but see my email to you. (With great respect) - You say "without outside applied force" and I say but there is an outside applied force - gravity. Therefore still within the bounds of accepted physics and engineering. John Collins John Collins Author of 'Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?' - for more information and details on ordering visit my web site at http://www.free-energy.co.uk From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 3 06:52:14 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA19858; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 06:50:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 06:50:03 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 06:51:06 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Polaron -vs- Phonon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"r8Vq6.0.As4.9wfxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22077 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 3 Sep 1998, Remi Cornwall wrote: > It was an ancient greek alimoney case. Tragic. > Remi, what's the point of your current string of messages? Are you trying to attract complaints from other subscribers? If not, then please be aware that they do have that effect. ((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (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 Sep 3 08:05:11 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA13475; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 08:01:31 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 08:01:31 -0700 Message-ID: <35EEA265.14C3 earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 09:06:29 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Murray: visited Ed Storms, "Cold Fusion Revisited" 9.3.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"VPHJw2.0.NI3.Azgxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22078 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Sept. 3, 1998 Edmund Storms, 2140 Paseo Ponderosa, Santa Fe, NM 87501-6319, 505-988-3673 storms2 ix.netcom.com Hello, Yesterday I had a very amiable visit at Ed Storms' hilltop house, where he showed me his extensive system for storing 4500 gallons of rainwater from his roof, two 500 gallon propane tanks, and a 6,000 W, 10 HP generator, in sensible preparation for the Y2K crisis on Jan. 1, 2000, something I am also very concerned about-- we met at a concerned citizens meeting the previous night. His wife Carol Talcott-Storms, also an electrochemist, has a sunny stained glass studio, full of jars of glass gems. Dozens of hummingbirds flitted gracefully about many feeders on the decks, right in front of our noses. Writers and photographers from Wired magazine had visited a week or so ago, for a long CF article by Charles Platt [cp panix.com]. For 2.5 hours, we talked, and he showed me his double calorimeter, able to detect reliably 0.1 W. I was very interested in his work with lowcost Pd films, 2 to 20 microns thick, on Pt. He has measured loading of D/Pd up to ~ 1.5, which is very high. He said 3 out of 7 of these ~1 cm2 cathodes reached up to .6 W excess at 15W input after a few days of loading. However, these cathodes still vary a lot in their properties from one another, so there is no way to guarantee excess heat, and apparently, after an excess heat event, the cathode has changed and will no longer react. I shared ideas about making a cell with a micron thickness cathode, 3X3 cm, with the electrolytic cell on one side, and the outer side viewed by a $ 100 digital camera, so images could be made in visible light, and, by removing the lens and setting up a pinhole camera, UV and IR, also. Since a $ 1,000 PC now has 6 GB hard disk, it would be easy to store an image, especially with data compression, every second for a week, so any momentary hot spot reactions could be instantly detected and permanently recorded, so the amount of energy and exact location could be proved. It would also be possible to monitor alpha, beta, gamma, and neutron radiation, passing through the thin foil, and acoustic signals that travel along the foil to the edges. So, the cell could be simplified by not doing the usual calorimetry, and focussing entirely on proving the existence of transient hot spot reactions. An astronomy club could help with providing cameras and software. Also, Pd film can be deposited directly on a CCD chip, making a ~1 cm cathode, so any events on the film can be recorded directly by the image software. If he continues to get about a 50 % excess heat success rate with his thin Pd film cathodes, this could be a feasible research strategy. He says that the current density has to be >= .25 A/cm2, and the ~ 15 V voltage has to be adjusted to load the cathode and then trigger heat bursts. A 10 cm2 cathode would need about 400 W. The Pd plating can be done easily in an hour, using an organic Pd solution from a jewelry supply company, a quart for ~ $ 50, Rio Grande Midas Pd Solution, # 335-013, 800-545-6566 Alb., NM 87121. I suggested he set up a Web page for his papers and to attract advice, support, and collaborators. He gave me his 40-page paper, with 92 references, "Cold Fusion Revisted," requested by but then rejected by the International Journal of Modern Physics, to be published soon in Infinite Energy. Dated June 27, 1998, he took about 6 months to write it, but the referees denounced it-- what else is new? His goal is to alert open-minded researchers to the possibilities. It has 2 references for 1997, none for 1998, and is a sensible, restrained, modest summary. The first 23 double-spaced pages summarize well-known experiments. To give the flavor of his report, I'll select a few quotes. He says about the Arata & Zhang cell, which in 1997 was claimed in long, detailed summary papers to produce about 20% excess heat for months with six out of six cathodes: "Because the work has been done with great care, interest in the results is growing. Several attempts in Japan to duplicte the results have failed because, according to Prof. Arata, the proper protocols were not followed. Additional efforts are underway in the U.S." This is the first I've heard about attempts to replicate what seems to be a simple, robust, sure-fire experiment-- does anyone have any details? About the Cincinnati Group and CETI (Patterson) cells for radioactive remediation via transmutation, he says: "A number of organizations [57] are proposing to use this effect to quickly convert radioactive isotopes to stable ones. These claims are still uncertain and are being actively pursued using a variety of methods and chemical environments." About the Miley (CETI, Patterson) transmutation in thin film Ni in H2O, "While most questions about the analytical methods have been answered, the nature of the nuclear process is still very much in doubt." About the Mizuno, Ohmori, Enyo, et al transmutation claims, "Abnormal isotopic ratios resulting from formation of metal hydride molecules, which distort SIMS measurements, or because of isotopic separation caused by electromigration may occur but are difficult to justify in all cases." About Stringham and George's ultrasonic cavitation cells with pure D2O, "Unfortunately, details of the process and the results are not available to the public although a general description can be found in Infinite Energy Magazine. [71] This is one of the few methods having high reproducibility and producing significant amounts of energy and nuclear products. People interested in the method can obtain more information by contacting the inventors." [rgeorge hooked.net] IV DISCUSSION: "Separating fact from fiction is the main problem in evaluating the value of these extraordinary claims. The basis in accepting evidence for such unconventional nuclear reactions is very much in the mind of the beholder. Is the reader familiar with the technique? Are the investigators known to the reader and can they be trusted? Is the work peer reviewed by an acceptible journal? Unfortunately, most people working tin this field are not known to the general physics community and most of the work is not peer reviewed by acceptible journals...Unfortunately, many studies can not be judged because so little detail has been properly described and many of the techniques have not been used by several independent investigators. On the other hand, some very good studies are available which use conventional, well accepted techniques. In addition, similar results have been obtained using a wide range of methods and techniques in laboratories throughout the world, only a small fraction of which are described in this review. While this common experience is not proof, it encourages continued open-minded interest in the field...very sensitive to the the chemical environment in which the reactions are thought to occur. Because few experiments use identical chemical environments, the results seem to have no clear pattern and are difficult to reproduce. Although error and incompetence add to the problem, these are clearly not the main variables. Accepting this insight is fundamental to accepting the claims...More complex reactions giving a spectrum of products seem to be possible...Particularly troublesome are the lack of resolution in the neutron/proton ratio between the apparent reactants and products and the lack of corrresponding energy production." V. CONCLUSIONS: "I can sympathize with anyone struggling with the reality of and meaning behind these disparate observations. Because skepticism is so wide spread, an intese effort by skilled and well funded scientists required to answer many of the questions has not been applied to the problem. The need for proof to be "compelling", as many scientists require, adds to the difficulty. Nevertheless, I suggest sufficient information is now available to strongly support claims for certain nuclear reactions taking place under conditions not sanctioned by conventional theory...I suggest that lack of certainty about its reality or a lack of knowledge about many of the details should be viewed as temporary distractions and not used as justifications for ignoring the potential benefits. Even if many of the claims have trivial explanations, the evidence now overwhelmingly indicates the existence of a novel phenomenon having unexplored benefits. Why not test the possibilities no matter how remote they seem?" Ed also gave me his ICCF-7 paper, 9 pages, "Relationship between open-circuit-voltage and heat production in a Pons-Fleischmann cell, about his own thin Pd film work, and "Formation of Beta-PdD containing high deuterium concentration using electrolysis of heavy-water, Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 268 (1998) 89-99, 40 references, submitted Oct. 15, 1997, revised Nov. 11, 1997, giving details and findings from work with Pd cathodes, 1X2X.1 cm. Rich Murray Room For All 1943 Otowi Drive Santa Fe, NM 87505 5095-986-9103 rmforall earthlink.net From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 3 08:13:14 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA16591; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 08:06:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 08:06:23 -0700 Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 11:03:57 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Ni CF power density Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809031106_MC2-584E-93D7 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"YHOl_1.0.934.l1hxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22079 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex I wrote: "U. Illinois, Motorola, and probably the French AEC have seen roughly the same level of heat, proportional to the mass of beads [as CETI]." That was an error. I should have said: "proportional to the mass of metal in the beads." Mitchell Swartz asked: Are you claiming that U. Illinois, Motorola, and the French AEC reported a kilowatt of excess heat? No, that would not be proportional. The large CETI cell had more beads with thicker film than the others. I think there was 40 ~ 400 times more metal in the large cell. Nickel light water systems have very low levels of (peak) excess heat in the ~80 milliwatt/cm2 range. CETI has seen much higher power density, and so have the gas loaded nickel systems, especially Piantelli, which has not been replicated. However the CETI cells that produced high power might have been a mixture of nickel and palladium. I do not recall. Perhaps pure nickel systems are limited to low power density, but I doubt it. Some people think Ni CF effect occurs at the surface, so the mass of Ni is not a controlling factor, only the surface area matters. I do not know about that. I think the layers of Pd and Ni in some CETI beads conduct hydrogen to the Ni surface. I do not think the Pd itself is producing heat with light hydrogen and low loading. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 3 08:53:35 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA00153; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 08:52:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 08:52:23 -0700 Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 11:49:00 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Ni CF power density - addendum Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809031152_MC2-5846-D926 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"LY7xV3.0.I2.sihxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22080 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex This time I wrote: U. Illinois, Motorola, and probably the French AEC have seen roughly the same level of heat, proportional to the mass of metal in the beads as CETI. I should add: . . . according to George Miley. That's his observation. He knows more about the mass of metal than I do, and a lot else too. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 3 09:04:48 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA05378; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 09:02:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 09:02:55 -0700 Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 09:04:00 -0700 Message-Id: <199809031604.JAA18232 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Re: More gravity as a source of energy Resent-Message-ID: <"LmxDD2.0.wJ1.kshxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22081 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >At 18:37 02/09/98 EDT, you wrote: >> >>In a message dated 9/2/98 12:16:10 PM, John Collins wrote (re the Bessler >>Wheel Principle): >> >><>under the influence of gravity, right now. No additional forces required.>> >> >>John, if you can demonstrate the "Bessler Wheel Principle" this way, you are >>home free! Forget the rotational demo. (I assume that what you are saying is >>that you think you can roll masses back and forth on a balance beam and have >>it continue in its teeter-totter motion without outside applied force - if >>that's the case, as I said, you are home free. But as you know, this would >>not be expected by ordinary physics and engineering 101!). >> >>Best regards, >> >>Hal Puthoff > >Nearly Hal, but see my email to you. (With great respect) - You say >"without outside applied force" and I say but there is an outside applied >force - gravity. Therefore still within the bounds of accepted physics and >engineering. > >John Collins John: When you say, "I could show you a means...", I assume you are telling me that you do not have an apparatus, and that you have not seen an apparatus actually in operation, running forever. Correct me if that is not accurate. You say it uses an outside applied force, gravity, and your usage there is semantics. The device you describe is NOT within the bounds of accepted physics. So either you don't know what you are talking about, or, one of your two statements is not accurate. Which is it? Hal is correct, if you, or anyone, could do that they would have ten million dollars in funding within a couple of months of effort. And if you can do it, I will get you ten million dollars in funding within months if you can't get it on your own. So why on God's green earth are you hiding in the closet if you have the prize everyone has sought for thousands of years right in your garage? Don't you want mankind to benefit from your tremendous re-creation of Bessler's wheel? Yes I am being sarcastic, (jokingly and no insults intended as to your intentions, I am poking at your "beliefs", which I consider to be inaccurate in that you are saying you could do something you cannot. You could tell me to do this or that, but if I did it and it failed, your confidence would lead you to tell me I did it wrong. I am telling you that your belief is, I think, wrong) If you have the device working, then bring it out into the open and show us how it works, or, file for patents and start selling it, as you choose. And if you need money to patent and market it, then either get it, or come and get it. but if you don't have anything, then don't imply in your messages to this group that you do. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 3 09:39:21 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA16500; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 09:30:01 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 09:30:01 -0700 Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 12:27:02 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Murray's UV detection scheme Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809031230_MC2-584B-9E81 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"CdN2E2.0.d14.8Gixr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22082 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Rich Murray wrote a fine report of his visit with Ed Storms. It is a pleasure to see such construtive information from him. Murray describes a scheme to detect hot spots on a thin film cathode: I shared ideas about making a cell with a micron thickness cathode, 3X3 cm, with the electrolytic cell on one side, and the outer side viewed by a $ 100 digital camera, so images could be made in visible light, and, by removing the lens and setting up a pinhole camera, UV and IR, also. This sounds tricky. I do not understand how it would work. I gather the cathode would be incorporated in the wall of cell. It might cover a hole in the bottom of a cylindrical cell. Some people call this a diaphragm cathode. How do you mount a fragile micron thick foil in a cell wall? How would you seal the edges? Would it hold the water back? I think the water would permeate through, and loading would be on one side only, so it might be uneven. I do not know the geometry of Storms' thin film anode & cathode. The problem with an ordinary cell is that the cathode is in water and behind glass, which blurs or stops the UV and IR. Many people have discussed ways to overcome this. It is a perennial topic at ICCF discussion groups. Several people have constructed diaphragm cathode cells, with mixed results. I have never heard of one with such a thin foil cathode. Even x-rays are stopped by the cells. Most of them, anyway. That is why the Italians and others have such trouble measuring them. Several people have suggested depositing thin film on beryllium and constructing a cell around it, making the Be part of the cell wall. X-rays pass through Be more easily than water and glass. It transmits X-rays 17 times as well as aluminum according to Britannica. Two or three people did this experiment years ago, with encouraging results. Be is a health hazard. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 3 09:50:35 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA28050; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 09:48:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 09:48:18 -0700 Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 12:41:59 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: Rich Murray , Vortex Subject: UV, Xray... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"RAF961.0.5s6.HXixr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22083 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Rich and Vo., There are fairly simple LW, SW and V UV and x ray metohds that can be used. A conversion phosphor in placed next to possible source... then the output is in the visible domain. JHS From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 3 10:56:03 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA28884; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 10:52:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 10:52:09 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980903135859.00ccc2c0 spectre.mitre.org> X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 13:58:59 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Robert I. Eachus" Subject: Patriot (was Re: Bessler's Wheel; some observations) In-Reply-To: <199809022324_MC2-5838-9786 compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"q14tL3.0.v27.8Tjxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22084 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:21 PM 9/2/98 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: >In the present day, during Congressional testimony people often say things >about "Star Wars" technology or the hot fusion program which I do not believe. >Testimony about the effectiveness of the Patriot Missile systems during the >Gulf War convinced me that the experts have no idea whether any scud missiles >where hit or inconvenienced. This is just flat not true. The experts know, and one of the chief issues in the evaluation of the effectiveness of the Patriot against Scuds was determining why it worked so well. (It turned out from analysis of the data that the shock wave from the Patriot going off disrupted the bow shock from the Scud. In effect the Scud ran into a brick wall even if no pieces of the Patriot hit the Scud.) Why was there so much frothing at the mouth at the Congressional hearings? The military and the Israelis wanted their competitive weapons to have a chance, and the anti-war lobby was paniced by the implications of the Scud data for "Star Wars" or any other anti-missile technology--it makes all those so called "penetration aids" excess baggage and making the defenders job much easier. (So the military also didn't want to be out there saying we goofed big time.) So what was all the hoo-rah about? Well you have an incomming missile at three thousand miles an hour, even if you convert it to junk and burn any chemical or biological contents up, you still have enough scrap iron to make a big hole when it hits. But big is ten feet in diameter, which compared to what a successful missile could and did do, was chump change. (Note that when missile wreckage did land in one piece it meant that the warhead was not filled with explosives...) What the opponents of the Patriot system were working from was TV and film footage. As the then President of MITRE testified, you cannot tell from anything other than very high-speed cameras or special radars whether or not the Patriot affected the Scud. (To put this in perspective, closing rates were about two miles a second. The Patriot would calculate when to explode for maximum effect, often less than 100 feet before the closest approach. Even if the shutter on the camera was open at the "right" time, it would be open for longer than the encounter.) (Incidently all of this is open source material, in fact you probably saw some of it live. The problem is understanding the bafflegab that was being thrown around. When an "expert" says that many of the missles tumbled and this could have caused them to fail. That expert was conveniently forgetting to mention that all of the observed cases of tumbling started right after a Patriot intercept.) 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 Sep 3 11:22:25 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA07454; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 11:18:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 11:18:59 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980903142548.00cd2680 spectre.mitre.org> X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 14:25:48 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Robert I. Eachus" Subject: Tungsten shortage? In-Reply-To: <03ab01bdd6bf$fd41fde0$478f85ce default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"y8RuY1.0.Nq1.Isjxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22086 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 04:20 PM 9/2/98 -0600, Frederick J Sparber wrote: >So much for Incandescent Tungsten as an energy source. Please read the story before posting! The "shortage" if there is one, is due to high US tariffs on Chinese ore. Osram Sylvania wants the DoD to release ore from its stockpile. The competitors, who buy refined Chinese ore at a much lower tariff are objecting... 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 Sep 3 11:22:34 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA07600; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 11:19:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 11:19:29 -0700 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19980903181340.2bb752e6 aapi.co.uk> X-Sender: jcollins aapi.co.uk X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: John Collins Subject: Re: Re: More gravity as a source of energy Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 19:22:35 +0100 Resent-Message-ID: <"BKvSY3.0.es1.msjxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22087 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 09:04 03/09/98 -0700, you wrote: >>At 18:37 02/09/98 EDT, you wrote: >>> >>>In a message dated 9/2/98 12:16:10 PM, John Collins wrote (re the Bessler >>>Wheel Principle): >>> >>><>>under the influence of gravity, right now. No additional forces required.>> >>> >>>John, if you can demonstrate the "Bessler Wheel Principle" this way, you are >>>home free! Forget the rotational demo. (I assume that what you are saying is >>>that you think you can roll masses back and forth on a balance beam and have >>>it continue in its teeter-totter motion without outside applied force - if >>>that's the case, as I said, you are home free. But as you know, this would >>>not be expected by ordinary physics and engineering 101!). >John: > >When you say, "I could show you a means...", I assume you are telling me >that you do not have an apparatus, and that you have not seen an apparatus >actually in operation, running forever. Correct me if that is not accurate. JC - What I meant was that I had designed a mechanism that will, under the force of gravity, push a mass sideways instead of downwards, and then, at the lowest position in the cycle cause it to pull itself inwards towards the center of gravity. It does exist and it works, but I am still working on the precise positioning of it. Maybe it still won't cause the balance beam to rotate? > >You say it uses an outside applied force, gravity, and your usage there is >semantics. The device you describe is NOT within the bounds of accepted >physics. So either you don't know what you are talking about, or, one of >your two statements is not accurate. Which is it? JC - Semantics? I don't think so. Perhaps I don't knopw what I am talking about, Ross. I only know what I see and that is what I described above. It depends on gravity to work, because if gravity was not present it would not work. Now if as you say that is not within the bounds of accepted physics then so be it. >Hal is correct, if you, or anyone, could do that they would have ten million >dollars in funding within a couple of months of effort. And if you can do >it, I will get you ten million dollars in funding within months if you can't >get it on your own. > >So why on God's green earth are you hiding in the closet if you have the >prize everyone has sought for thousands of years right in your garage? >Don't you want mankind to benefit from your tremendous re-creation of >Bessler's wheel? > >Yes I am being sarcastic, (jokingly and no insults intended as to your >intentions, I am poking at your "beliefs", which I consider to be inaccurate >in that you are saying you could do something you cannot. You could tell me >to do this or that, but if I did it and it failed, your confidence would >lead you to tell me I did it wrong. I am telling you that your belief is, I >think, wrong) > >If you have the device working, then bring it out into the open and show us >how it works, or, file for patents and start selling it, as you choose. And >if you need money to patent and market it, then either get it, or come and >get it. but if you don't have anything, then don't imply in your messages >to this group that you do. JC - OUCH! Ross I've got right up your nose haven't I? There is no device - yet. But I do have what I believe is part of the mechanism that Bessler used. You of course do not believe in him, but I do. He stated that if a person with an acute mind was to study certain drawings that he had left behind, then that person might eventually discover a mechanism, and further study might lead to the solution of Bessler's wheel. Now I don't claim to have an acute mind, but years of study have made me very familiar with everything about Bessler and IMHO I think I have found the mechanism. All I have to do is fit it in the right way and - bingo! But that is just my opinion and if I have stepped on your sensibilities, I apologise. John > >Ross Tessien > > > > John Collins Author of 'Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?' - for more information and details on ordering visit my web site at http://www.free-energy.co.uk From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 3 11:22:54 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA06530; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 11:17:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 11:17:03 -0700 Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 14:13:57 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Arata cell is difficult Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809031417_MC2-5855-9B82 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"mRetO3.0.xb1.Uqjxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22085 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Rich Murray writes of the Arata & Zhang cell: This is the first I've heard about attempts to replicate what seems to be a simple, robust, sure-fire experiment-- does anyone have any details? This is not a simple, robust or sure-fire experiment. There are no such experiments in CF. This happens to one of the most difficult, mainly because the double structured cathode is hard to fabricate and it can rupture from the pressure. McKubre described some of the frustrations in a lecture about SRI's attempt to replicate Arata, but I do not see a paper about it in ICCF6 or ICCF7. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 3 11:29:13 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA11347; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 11:26:45 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 11:26:45 -0700 Message-ID: <008e01bdd767$a470c860$5d8f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Cc: "George" Subject: Re: Tungsten shortage? Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 12:21:11 -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: <"vqW3t2.0.5n2.azjxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22088 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 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Thursday, September 03, 1998 12:20 PM Subject: Tungsten shortage? Got your attention, didn't I? :-) Regards, Frederick Robert wrote: >At 04:20 PM 9/2/98 -0600, Frederick J Sparber wrote: >>So much for Incandescent Tungsten as an energy source. > > Please read the story before posting! The "shortage" if there is one, >is due to high US tariffs on Chinese ore. Osram Sylvania wants the DoD to >release ore from its stockpile. The competitors, who buy refined Chinese >ore at a much lower tariff are objecting... > > 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 Sep 3 12:30:13 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA02476; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 12:27:57 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 12:27:57 -0700 Message-ID: <35EF0972.15FA sunherald.infi.net> Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 14:26:10 -0700 From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Reply-To: stk sunherald.infi.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: For the sake.... References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"gTMBA2.0.cc.yskxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22089 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John Schnurer wrote: That's the basic idea I had for inducing a phase shift in the CW. When my o-scope gets here (I ordered it today, $500), I'll set up the experiment and test it out. If I find anything interesting, I'll post it here. I'll also see if I can get my results published in a respectable journal. Maybe then the science community would begin to see that superluminal velocities aren't out of the question. On a different note...: I've heard that one can't send signals by phase modulation at FTL; they say that the phase change never exceeds the speed of light. I don't know, but I will try the experiment anyways. Kyle R. Mcallister From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 3 12:57:09 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA11907; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 12:54:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 12:54:11 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com ) Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com Message-ID: <35EEF423.4945B8E3 css.mot.com> Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 14:55:15 -0500 From: John Steck Organization: Motorola PCS - Rapid Tooling Applications X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: More gravity as a source of energy References: <1.5.4.16.19980903181340.2bb752e6 aapi.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"zIvVp.0.wv2.YFlxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22090 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John Collins wrote: > But I do have what I believe is part of the mechanism that Bessler used. > All I have to do is fit it in the right way. Ok, finally to the interesting stuff... 8^) What of this mechanism can you share? Is it something you can diagram and post on your website for us screw counters to look at? If confidentiality is an issue I would be happily agree to a NDA/NCA. Consider it done with this message. Ball is in your court.... -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John E. Steck Senior Mechanical Engineer Rapid Tooling Applications Motorola, Libertyville, IL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 3 14:37:40 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA18433; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 14:36:34 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 14:36:34 -0700 Message-ID: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5CFD9CFB xch-cpc-02> From: "Scudder, Henry J" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Tungsten shortage? Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 14:37:07 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"NC6473.0.vV4.Xlmxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22091 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frederick Every time I try to access one of your newsbrteifs, I get the front page, and cant find what you are referring too without a lot of searching, and often not even then. Whats the secret? Hank > ---------- > From: Frederick J Sparber[SMTP:fjsparb sprintmail.com] > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Sent: Thursday, September 03, 1998 11:21 AM > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Cc: George > Subject: Re: Tungsten shortage? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert I. Eachus > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Date: Thursday, September 03, 1998 12:20 PM > Subject: Tungsten shortage? > > Got your attention, didn't I? :-) > > Regards, Frederick > > Robert wrote: > > > >At 04:20 PM 9/2/98 -0600, Frederick J Sparber wrote: > >>So much for Incandescent Tungsten as an energy source. > > > > Please read the story before posting! The "shortage" if there is one, > >is due to high US tariffs on Chinese ore. Osram Sylvania wants the DoD > to > >release ore from its stockpile. The competitors, who buy refined Chinese > >ore at a much lower tariff are objecting... > > > > 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 Sep 3 15:34:34 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA16036; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 15:32:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 15:32:23 -0700 Message-ID: <00b901bdd789$f2e00160$5d8f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Tungsten shortage? Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 16:26:44 -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: <"-PpZT1.0.Ew3.sZnxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22092 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Scudder, Henry J To: 'vortex-l eskimo.com' Date: Thursday, September 03, 1998 3:38 PM Subject: RE: Tungsten shortage? Beats me, Hank. The Albuquerque Journal Web Page carries the latest AP headlines. So it might be too buried for you to pull up. I usaually check the message in my Outlook Express outbox to see if it comes up okay before I hit the Send Button. I didn't think you are interested in reading the Albuquerque Journal.:-) However, I use CNN as my home page, but they usually lag behind AP. Then again sometimes the AP headlines credit CNN. It's all too complicated for me, Hank. Best, Frederick Hank Scudder wrote: >Frederick > Every time I try to access one of your newsbrteifs, I get the front >page, and cant find what you are referring too without a lot of searching, >and often not even then. Whats the secret? >Hank > >> ---------- >> From: Frederick J Sparber[SMTP:fjsparb sprintmail.com] >> Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com >> Sent: Thursday, September 03, 1998 11:21 AM >> To: vortex-l eskimo.com >> Cc: George >> Subject: Re: Tungsten shortage? >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Robert I. Eachus >> To: vortex-l eskimo.com >> Date: Thursday, September 03, 1998 12:20 PM >> Subject: Tungsten shortage? >> >> Got your attention, didn't I? :-) >> >> Regards, Frederick >> >> Robert wrote: >> >> >> >At 04:20 PM 9/2/98 -0600, Frederick J Sparber wrote: >> >>So much for Incandescent Tungsten as an energy source. >> > >> > Please read the story before posting! The "shortage" if there is one, >> >is due to high US tariffs on Chinese ore. Osram Sylvania wants the DoD >> to >> >release ore from its stockpile. The competitors, who buy refined Chinese >> >ore at a much lower tariff are objecting... >> > >> > 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 Sep 3 16:43:26 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA12700; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 16:42:12 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 16:42:12 -0700 Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 16:43:16 -0700 Message-Id: <199809032343.QAA18202 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Re: More gravity as a source of energy Resent-Message-ID: <"1qs6k.0.L63.Jboxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22093 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >>When you say, "I could show you a means...", I assume you are telling me >>that you do not have an apparatus, and that you have not seen an apparatus >>actually in operation, running forever. Correct me if that is not accurate. > >JC - What I meant was that I had designed a mechanism that will, under the >force of gravity, push a mass sideways instead of downwards, and then, at >the lowest position in the cycle cause it to pull itself inwards towards the >center of gravity. It does exist and it works, but I am still working on >the precise positioning of it. Maybe it still won't cause the balance beam >to rotate? If it causes absolutely anything to continue, perpetually, then it is a success. It doesn't matter how you wind it up to get it started. All that matters, is that whatever it does, you never have to wind it up a second time to get it going again. If that is so, then you have something I do not believe you have. But, as John Steck said, if you think you are close, send over an NDA of your choosing to cover the device, and then send over your plans for evaluation. I have no interest in such a device as I am positive it won't work. but, I would be willing to look at it, and if the universe allows a PM machine, then I will lick my wounds and help you build the thing. BTW, I am convinced there are ways to derive energy from various nuclear phenomena not presently known, and I suspect there are ways to derive energy directly from gravity itself. So it isn't that I don't have an extremely open mind. It is simply that I have studied a wide variety of devices of the genre you are talking about and have found nothing remotely close to being viable. At least spinning and flipping magnets have some interesting sub atomic processes going on so that I bite my tongue and remain reserved. But pulleys and belts and spinning wheels are all mechanical and IMO, do not stand even the slightest chance of success. >> >>You say it uses an outside applied force, gravity, and your usage there is >>semantics. The device you describe is NOT within the bounds of accepted >>physics. So either you don't know what you are talking about, or, one of >>your two statements is not accurate. Which is it? > >JC - Semantics? I don't think so. Perhaps I don't knopw what I am talking >about, Ross. I only know what I see and that is what I described above. It >depends on gravity to work, because if gravity was not present it would not >work. Now if as you say that is not within the bounds of accepted physics >then so be it. To use the force of gravity to drive a weight you raise in order to get the thing going is one thing. But, if it runs perpetually after that, then you are doing something additional that is completely independent of the gravitational field. You are doing something to deflect, or alter, the "nature" of the field or the matter. Now I have a good idea about the nature of gravitation, and it is a filtering of wave energy coming from over head in the distant universe, and not some silly pulling force eminating from the earth. So you have no chance of altering the gravitational field. What you do stand a chance to accomplish is to deflect that incident wave energy, or, to alter the degree that the matter in the components of your device filter it (ie, alter their gravitational mass to be smaller as the atoms rise, and larger as they fall). Ergo, the fact that simple steel, wood, etc doesn't stand a chance of doing that leads me to conclude there is no hope for any device in the genre you are discussing. That said, if you think otherwise and know how and can build it, then go for it. If you want it reviewed, you have two engineers now who would review it. If you want to discuss it, then describe the techniques openly. But if you want to just keep it a secret, that is fine too, but then we don't need to discuss it here. If you want to have a secret, you don't need to jump up and down shouting that you have one, rather, just keep quiet. So, if you want help, shout. Ross Tessien President, Impulse Engineering, Inc. Mechanical Engineer. PS; >JC - OUCH! Ross I've got right up your nose haven't I? There is no device >- yet. But I do have what I believe is part of the mechanism that Bessler >used. You of course do not believe in him, but I do. You have no idea how many people I have met who wanted me to build a device for them they knew would work, but they didn't have the first clue about mechanics and it was obvious it would not. And also, I don't believe "in people" period. I believe in things I see, and things I understand. I doubt things that sound wrong, and I consider probable things I think I understand. But, I am open to being proven incorrect. I am just extremely confident that no device like you described will ever do that to me, and I would recomend that you don't waste your money or time trying. But the beauty of a free world is that you don't need to take my advice, and I may be wrong. So go for it if you think it will work. But as for postings on this group, if you are going to discuss the workings of it fine. We can all figure out what is wrong about your thinking, or learn about a new device. But to babble for the sake of babble, we have all done for too long. this is cluttering up my in basket if it is going to go no where. RT From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 3 17:10:41 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA21687; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 17:08:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 17:08:42 -0700 Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 17:09:41 -0700 Message-Id: <199809040009.RAA22117 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: SOHO update: Resent-Message-ID: <"Trrbg.0.hI5.8-oxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22094 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a "final" report of the loss of control of SOHO. From what I gather, this does NOT mean that they have given up attempts to recover control of the spacecraft. But this is an excellent blow by blow accounting of how the control was lost. Basically, control was lost due to controller error on the ground, and not due to a failure of the space craft itself. Hind sight being 20/20, they have deciphered the sequence of errors that over a 5 or so hour period, led to loss of control. http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/whatsnew/SOHO_final_report.html I have received no recent news on the on going attempts to regain control. However, the investor who has funded the illustration of the book I am writing, and who is going to fund development of the "CF" technology I want to construct, has offered to fly me to the SOHO conference in Maine at the end of this month. So I should have the latest information at that time, if there is anything more to tell. I'll bite my tongue for a few days before suggesting that they have been watching aether, aka empty space, spewing out of the sun and flinging matter out into space in all their wonderful images of CME's etc. ;-) Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 3 17:44:37 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA03171; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 17:43:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 17:43:07 -0700 Message-ID: <35EF2AB9.5AED earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 18:48:09 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, storms2@ix.netcom.com Subject: Murray: Rothwell: thin wall CF cell 9.3.98 References: <199809031230_MC2-584B-9E81 compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"TQ_AJ3.0.Sn.QUpxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22095 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Sept. 3, 1998 Hey, Jed, thanks for the appreciation. I know thin metal foils are used with vacuum chambers and accelerators to allow beams to emerge into the open air, so they have to withstand 1 atm pressure. A rather thin foil could be supported on a C fiber mesh, or Kevlar. The Be foil is a good idea. The Pd could be deposited on the inside, which would be the cathode inside the electrolyte. Perhaps the best geometry would be for the foil to be the bottom of the cell. It could be securely clamped into place with a ring gasket, or epoxied on, or merely mounted on a ring and allowed to simply sit on a ring gasket, allowing the weight of the electrolyte to hold it in place. Rich Murray From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 3 17:45:20 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA03365; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 17:43:26 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 17:43:26 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5CFD9CFB xch-cpc-02> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 14:41:55 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: RE: Tungsten shortage? Resent-Message-ID: <"kbBOg2.0.Aq.iUpxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22096 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hank - > Frederick > Every time I try to access one of your > newsbrteifs, I get the front page, and cant find what > you are referring too without a lot of searching, and > often not even then. Whats the secret? Hank Me too, But I found that once there at the front page, the URL with all the CGI stuff as Frederick posts it is still in the address bar. Just hit the return key at that point. The resulting re-requesting of that URl from the front page location should get the CGI request to find its correct target and get you to the page you want. Works for me. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 3 17:59:47 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA09482; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 17:55:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 17:55:47 -0700 Message-Id: <199809040056.TAA05349 neon.prysm.net> From: "Robert Calloway" To: Subject: Re: Caduceus Coil (was Re: Oscilloscopes) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 19:45:32 -0500 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: <"TzLOY3.0.3K2.Igpxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22097 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hello All, For whatever my opinon is worth, I advise experimenting with "Pulsed DC" with caduceus coils. Also staying with the 45 degree crossings on the coil is a must. My experiments have been limited to 20 mhz because this old 2120B scope wont go any higher. So, I have experimented with pulsed dc alot. My favorite is a 1/2" X 12" long coil with 19 crossings at 45 degree angles. I then pluse the coil with 24 volt dc at 60 pulses per min. At this setting a neodinium magnet will walk up and down the inside core of the coil. Up your pulse to 360 or better and it will "float" up and down the coil. Regards, Robert H. Calloway ---------- > From: Hamdi Ucar > To: vortex > Subject: Re: Caduceus Coil (was Re: Oscilloscopes) > Date: Wednesday, September 02, 1998 3:10 PM > > Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: > > > > Hamdi Ucar wrote: > > > [snip] > > > > What was the type of caduceous coil you used? Did the winding start at > > end A, go up to end B, turn, and continue back to end A? Or was it two > > windings, both starting at end A, and terminating at end B? (see > > attached .GIF) If you used the first setup, you will just have a > > strangely wound solenoid coil. If you used the second setup, you have a > > true caduceous coil. (non-inductive) > > > > Forgive the badly rendered GIF file...I'm no artist;) > > Kyle R. Mcallister > > > > In my coil windings are are parallel without spacing like ordibary windings, not 90 degree, only crossing each other two times per loop. > > Dimensions are 20 mm diameter, 60 mm length, wounded by 0.45mm wire (25AWG), 60 turns CW + 60 turns CWW windings. > Windings are not combined at each end, in my setup until now, if you label separate windings as 1 and 2, and ends as A and B, > I attach 1A to oscillator output, 2A to ground or to 30 cm free wire (or leave unconnected) and 1B, 2B left unconnected. > > As the frequency is in range 10-60MHz, capacitive couplings are playing role, and a complex LC circuit resonate forming nodes along the coil, typically 9 nodes are present on 30-60MHz range( I have no instrument to measure the frequency, only I guess) > > Due to parasitic capacitances (in my wounding scheme) it is not possible to obtain a non inductive coil, specially at RF. Rather I try profit from this capacitances to obtain some unusual results. > > Regards, > hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 3 19:00:26 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA19055; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 18:56:09 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 18:56:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <35EF4497.5365158F verisoft.com.tr> Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 04:38:31 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex Subject: humour: Why Internet can make you lonely, depressed ? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"QDo812.0.bf4.uYqxr" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22098 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Because these people were using the Netscape! Which show constantly the red traffic light or "STOP" icon (I am sure everybody hate these traffic signs), does the opposite that it was intended, crashing every time, drives you crazy! "The families used Carnegie Mellon University’s proprietary software for electronic mail, MacMail II, Netscape Navigator for web browsing, and ClarisWorks Office." For more info http://homenet.andrew.cmu.edu/progress/HN.impact.10.htm http://www.salonmagazine.com/21st/ Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 3 19:18:15 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA13423; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 19:16:34 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 19:16:34 -0700 From: Chuck Davis To: Hamdi Ucar Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 19:17:37 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <35EF4497.5365158F verisoft.com.tr> X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.5 [020] - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck Organization: ROSHI Corporation Subject: Re: humour: Why Internet can make you lonely, depressed ? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"F1P9M2.0.YH3.1sqxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22099 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 03-Sep-98, Hamdi Ucar wrote: >Because these people were using the Netscape! Speaking of Netscrape, have any of you Intel drives checked out the new Opera browser? http://www.operasoftware.com >Which show constantly the red traffic light or "STOP" icon (I am sure >everybody hate these traffic signs), does the opposite that it was intended, >crashing every time, drives you crazy! >"The families used Carnegie Mellon Universitys proprietary software for >electronic mail, MacMail II, Netscape Navigator for web browsing, and >ClarisWorks Office." >For more info >http://homenet.andrew.cmu.edu/progress/HN.impact.10.htm >http://www.salonmagazine.com/21st/ >Regards, >hamdi ucar -- .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ -/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\-- RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \ / \_/ `-' \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' http://www.his.com/~emerald7/roshi.cmp/roshi.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 3 22:22:36 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA11178; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 22:21:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 22:21:04 -0700 Message-ID: <35EF6BDA.4BC3 earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 23:26:03 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Sweeney: 25 rules of disinformation 1997 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"UmkRJ2.0.ak2._Ytxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22100 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The 25 Rules of Disinformation Part 1/2 http://www.largeruniverse.com/cgi-bin/config.pl?read=2058 Posted by larry on Saturday, 29 August 1998, at 11:13 a.m. Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation by H. Michael Sweeney copyright (c) 1997 All rights reserved Permission to reprint/distribute hereby granted for any non commercial use provided information reproduced in its entirety and with author information in tact. For more Intel/Shadow government related info, visit the Light vs. Shadow home page: Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate in the world of dealing with truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against those seeking to uncover and expose the conspiracy. There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as revealed here. Also included with this material are seven common traits of the disinfo artist which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives. The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive. Understand that when the those seeking resolution of such crimes proceed in attempting to uncover truth, they try their best to present factual information constructed as an argument for a particular chain of evidence towards a particular solution to the crime. This can be a largely experimental process via trial and error, with a theory developed over time to perfection or defeated by the process. This is their most vulnerable time, the time when a good disinfo artist can do the greatest harm to the process. A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are solid and conclusive, that one or more links are weak and need further development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or more links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily so, if parallel links already exist or can be found, or if a particular link was merely supportive, but not in itself key) the argument. The game is played by raising issues which either strengthen or weaken (preferably to the point of breaking) these links. It is the job of a disinfo artist to at least make people think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not. It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the chain of evidence, revelation of truth has won out. If the chain is broken either a new link must be forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the basis is lost, but truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed chain if done with honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach. While it is understandable that a person can become emotionally involved with a particular side of a given issue, it is really unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will seek to prevent new links from being forged by a kind of intimidation. It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull his strings who stand to suffer should the crime be solved, and therefore, who stand to benefit should it be the opposite outcome. In ANY such case, they MUST seek to prevent rational and complete examination of any chain of evidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this process. However, the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often easily led astray by these time-proven tactics. The overall aim is to avoid discussing links in the chain of evidence which cannot be broken by truth, but at all times, to use clever deceptions or lies to make the links seem weaker than they are, or better still, cause any who are considering the chain to be distracted in any number of ways, including the method of questioning the credentials of the presenter. Please understand that fact is fact, regardless of the source. Truth is truth, regardless of the source. This is why criminals are allowed to testify against other criminals. Where a motive to lie may truly exist, only actual evidence that the testimony itself IS a lie renders it completely invalid. Were a known "liar's" testimony to stand on its own without supporting fact, it might certainly be of questionable value, but if the testimony (argument) is based on verifiable or otherwise demonstrable facts, it matters not who does the presenting or what their motives are, or if they have lied in the past or even if motivated to lie in this instance -- the facts or links would and should stand or fall on their own merit and their part in the matter will merely be supportive. Moreover, particularly with respects to public forums such as newspaper letters to the editor, and Internet chat and news groups, the disinfo type has a very important role. In these forums, the principle topics of discussion are generally attempts by individuals to cause other persons to become interested in their own particular problem, position, or idea -- usually ideas, postulations, or theories which are in development at the time. People often use such mediums as a sounding board and in hopes of pollenization to better form their ideas. Where such ideas are critical of government or powerful, vested groups (especially if their criminality is the topic), the disinfo artist has yet another role -- the role of nipping it in the bud. They also seek to stage the concept, the presenter, and any supporters as less than credible should any possible future confrontation in more public forums result due to successes in seeking a final truth. You can often spot the disinfo types at work here by the unique application of "higher standards" of discussion than necessarily warranted. They will demand that those presenting arguments or concepts back everything up with the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or investigative writer. Anything less renders any discussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid. So, as you read here in the NGs the various discussions on various matters, decide for yourself when a rational argument is being applied and when disinformation, psyops (psychological warfare operations) or trickery is the tool. Accuse those guilty of the later freely. They (both those deliberately seeking to lead you astray, and those who are simply foolish or misguided thinkers) generally run for cover when thus illuminated, or -- put in other terms, they put up or shut up (a perfectly acceptable outcome either way, since truth is the goal). Here are the twenty-five methods and six traits, some of which don't apply directly to NG application. Each contains a simple example in the form of actual paraphrases form NG comments or commonly known historical events, and a proper response. Accusations should not be overused -- reserve for repeat offenders and those who use multiple tactics. Responses should avoid falling into emotional traps or informational sidetracks, unless it is feared that some observers will be easily dissuaded by the trickery. Consider quoting the complete rule rather than simply citing it, as others will not have reference. Offer to provide a complete copy of the rule set upon request (see permissions statement at end): Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up. 1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues. Example: Media was present in the courtroom when in Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby when CIA agent Marita Lorenz "confession" testimony regarding CIA direct participation in the planning and assassination of John Kennedy was revealed. All media reported is that E. Howard Hunt lost his liable case against Liberty Lobby (Spotlight had reported he was in Dallas that day and were sued for the story). See Mark Lane's Plausible Denial for the full confessional transcript. Proper response: There is no possible response unless you are aware of the material and can make it public yourself.. In any such attempt, be certain to target any known silent party as likely complicit in a cover up. 2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit. Example: "How dare you suggest that the Branch Davidians were murdered! the FBI and BATF are made up of America's finest and best trained law enforcement, operate under the strictest of legal requirements, and are under the finest leadership the President could want to appoint." Proper response: You are avoiding the Waco issue with disinformation tactics. Your high opinion of FBI is not founded in fact. All you need do is examine Ruby Ridge and any number of other examples, and you will see a pattern that demands attention to charges against FBI/BATF at Waco. Why do you refuse to address the issues with disinformation tactics (rule 2 - become incredulous and indignant)? 3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact. "You can't prove his material was legitimately from French Intelligence. Pierre Salinger had a chance to show his 'proof' that flight 800 was brought down by friendly fire, and he didn't. All he really had was the same old baseless rumor that's been floating around the Internet for months." Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. The Internet charge reported widely is based on a single FBI interview statement to media and a supportive statement by a Congressman who has not actually seen Pierre's document. As the FBI is being accused in participating in a cover up of this matter and Pierre claims his material is not Internet sourced, it is natural that FBI would have reason to paint his material in a negative light. For you to assume the FBI to have no bias in the face of Salinger's credentials and unchanged stance suggests you are biased. At the best you can say the matter is in question. Further, to imply that material found on Internet is worthless is not founded. At best you may say it must be considered carefully before accepting it, which will require addressing the actual issues. Why do you refuse to address these issues with disinformation tactics (rule 3 - create rumor mongers)? 4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. Example: When trying to defeat reports by the Times of London that spy-sat images reveal an object racing towards and striking flight 800, a straw man is used. "If these exist, the public has not seen them." Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You imply deceit and deliberately establish an impossible and unwarranted test. It is perfectly natural that the public has not seen them, nor will they for some considerable time, if ever. To produce them would violate national security with respect to intelligence gathering capabilities and limitations, and you should know this. Why do you refuse to address the issues with such disinformation tactics (rule 4 - use a straw man)? 5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues. Example: "You believe what you read in the Spotlight? The Publisher, Willis DeCarto, is a well-known right-wing racist. I guess we know your politics -- does your Bible have a swastika on it? That certainly explains why you support this wild-eyed, right-wing conspiracy theory." Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply guilt by association and attack truth on the basis of the messenger. The Spotlight is well known Populist media source responsible for releasing facts and stories well before mainstream media will discuss the issues through their veil of silence. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 5 - sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule)? 6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint. Example: "This stuff is garbage. Where do you conspiracy lunatics come up with this crap? I hope you all get run over by black helicopters." Notice it even has a farewell sound to it, so it won't seem curious if the author is never heard from again. Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your comments or opinions fail to offer any meaningful dialog or information, and are worthless except to pander to emotionalism, and in fact, reveal you to be emotionally insecure with these matters. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 - hit and run)? 7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive. Example: "With the talk-show circuit and the book deal, it looks like you can make a pretty good living spreading lies." Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply guilt as a means of attacking the messenger or his credentials, but cowardly fail to offer any concrete evidence that this is so. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 - question motives)? 8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutia" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources. "You obviously know nothing about either the politics or strategic considerations, much less the technicals of the SR-71. Incidentally, for those who might care, that sleek plane is started with a pair of souped up big-block V-8's (originally, Buick 454 C.I.D. with dual 450 CFM Holly Carbs and a full-race Isky cams -- for 850 combined BHP 6,500 RPM) using a dragster-style clutch with direct-drive shaft. Anyway, I can tell you with confidence that no Blackbird has ever been flown by Korean nationals have ever been trained to fly it, and have certainly never overflown the Republic of China in a SR or even launched a drone from it that flew over China. I'm not authorized to discuss if there have been overflights by American pilots." Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply your own authority and expertise but fail to provide credentials, and you also fail to address issues and cite sources. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 8 - invoke authority)? 9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect. Example: "Nothing you say makes any sense. Your logic is idiotic. Your facts nonexistent. Better go back to the drawing board and try again." Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade the issues with your own form of nonsense while others, perhaps more intelligent than you pretend to be, have no trouble with the material. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 9 - play dumb)? 10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source. Example: "Flight 553's crash was pilot error, according to the NTSB findings. Digging up new witnesses who say the CIA brought it down at a selected spot and were waiting for it with 50 agents won't revive that old dead horse buried by NTSB more than twenty years ago." Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your ignore the issues and imply they are old charges as if new information is irrelevant. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 10 - associate charges with old news)? 11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues. Example: "Reno admitted in hindsight she should have taken more time to question the data provided by subordinates on the deadliness of CS-4 and the likely Davidian response to its use, but she was so concerned about the children that she elected, in what she now believes was a sad and terrible mistake, to order the tear gas be used." Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade the true issue by focusing on a side issue in an attempt to evoke sympathy. Perhaps you did not know that CIA Public Relations expert Mark Richards was called in to help Janet Reno with the Waco aftermath response? How warm and fuzzy feeling it makes us, so much so that we are to ignore more important matters? Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 11 - establish and rely upon fall-back positions)? 12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues. Example: "I don't see how you can claim Vince Foster was murdered since you can't prove a motive. Before you could do that, you would have to completely solve the whole controversy over everything that went on in the White House and Arkansas, and even then, you would have to know a heck of a lot more about what went on within the NSA, the Travel Office, and on, and on, and on. It's hopeless. Give it up." Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your completely evade issues and attempt others from daring to attempt it by making it a much bigger mountain than necessary. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 12 - enigmas have no solution)? 13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact. Example: "The news media operates in a fiercely competitive market where stories are gold. This means they dig, dig, dig for the story -- often doing a better job than law enforcement. If there was any evidence that BATF had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing, they would surely have uncovered it and reported it. They haven't reported it, so there can't have been any prior knowledge. Put up or shut up." Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your backwards logic does not work here. Has media reported CIA killed Kennedy when they knew it? No, despite their presence at a courtroom testimony "confession" by CIA operative Marita Lornez in a liable trial between E. Howard Hunt and Liberty Lobby, they only told us the trial verdict. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 13 - Alice in Wonderland logic)? 14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best items qualifying for rule 10. Example: "Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is innocent as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?" Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. It is not necessary to completely resolve any full matter in order to examine any relative attached issue. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 14 - demand complete solutions)? 15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place. Example: The best definitive example of avoiding issues by this technique is, perhaps, Arlan Specter's Magic Bullet from the Warren Report. Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imaginative twisting of facts rivals that of Arlan Specter's Magic Bullet in the Warren Report. We all know why the magic bullet was invented. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 15 - invoke authority)? 16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue. Example: "You can't say Paisley is still alive... that his death was faked and the list of CIA agents found on his boat deliberately placed there to support a purge at CIA. You have no proof. Why can't you accept the Police reports?" True, since the dental records and autopsy report showing his body was two inches two long and the teeth weren't his were lost right after his wife demanded inquiry, and since his body was cremated before she could view it -- all that remains are the Police Reports. Handy. Proper response: There is no suitable response to actual vanished materials or persons, unless you can shed light on the matter, particularly if you can tie the event to a cover up or other criminality. However, with respect to dialog where it is used against the discussion, you can respond... You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. The best you can say is that the matter is in contention based on highly suspicious matters which themselves tend to support the primary allegation. Why do you refuse to address the remaining issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 16 - vanish evidence and witnesses)? 17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues. Example: "There were no CIA drugs and was no drug money laundering through Mena, Arkansas, and certainly, there was no Bill Clinton knowledge of it because it simply didn't happen. This is merely an attempt by his opponents to put Clinton off balance and at a disadvantage in the election because Dole is such a weak candidate with nothing to offer that they are desperate to come up with something to swing the polls. Dole simply has no real platform." Response. "You idiot! Dole has the clearest vision of what's wrong with Government since McGovern. Clinton is only interested in raping the economy, the environment, and every woman he can get his hands on..." One naturally feels compelled, regardless of party of choice, to jump in defensively on that one... Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade discussion of the issues by attempting to sidetrack us with an emotional response -- a trap which we will not fall into willingly. If you truly believe such political rhetoric, please drop out of this discussion, as it is not germane unless you can provide concrete facts to support your contentions of relevance. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 17- change the subject)? 18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism". Example: "You are such an idiot to think that possible -- or are you such a paranoid conspiracy buff that you think the 'gubment' is cooking your pea-brained skull with microwaves, which is the only justification you might have for dreaming up this drivel." After a drawing an emotional response: "Ohhh... I do seemed to have touched a sensitive nerve. Tsk, tsk. What's the matter? The truth too hot for you to handle? Perhaps you should stop relying on the Psychic Friends Network and see a psychiatrist for some real professional help..." Proper response: "You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You attempt to draw me into emotional response without discussion of the issues. If you have something useful to contribute which defeats my argument, let's here it -- preferably without snide and unwarranted personal attacks, if you can manage to avoid sinking so low. Your useless rhetoric serves no purpose here if that is all you can manage. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 18 - emotionalize, antagonize, and goad opponents)? From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 3 22:26:28 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA12059; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 22:24:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 22:24:33 -0700 Message-ID: <35EF6CAF.2E91 earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 23:29:35 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: 25 rules of disinformation Part 2/2 1997 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"5oJeQ.0.Ky2.Gctxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22101 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: 19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance. Example: "All he's done is to quote the liberal media and a bunch of witnesses who aren't qualified. Where's his proof? Show me wreckage from flight 800 that shows a missile hit it!" Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You presume for us not to accept Don Phillips, reporter for the Washington Post, Al Baker, Craig Gordon or Liam Pleven, reporters for Newsday, Matthew Purdy or Matthew L. Wald, Don Van Natta Jr., reporters for the New York Times, or Pat Milton, wire reporter for the Associated Press -- as being able to tell us anything useful about the facts in this matter. Neither would you allow us to accept Robert E. Francis, Vice Chairman of the NTSB, Joseph Cantamessa Jr., Special Agent In Charge of the New York Office of the F.B.I., Dr. Charles Wetli, Suffolk County Medical Examiner, the Pathologist examining the bodies, nor unnamed Navy divers, crash investigators, or other cited officials, including Boeing Aircraft representatives a part of the crash investigative team -- as a qualified party in this matter, and thus, dismisses this material out of hand. Good logic, -- about as good as saying 150 eye witnesses aren't qualified. Only YOUR are qualified to tell us what to believe? Witnesses be damned? Radar tracks be damned? Satellite tracks be damned? Reporters be damned? Photographs be damned? Government statements be damned? Is there a pattern here?. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 19 - ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs)? 20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications. Example: Jack Ruby warned the Warren Commission that the white Russian separatists, the Solidarists, were involved in the assassination. This was a handy "confession", since Jack and Earl were both on the same team in terms of the cover up, and since it is now known that Jack worked directly with CIA in the assassination. Proper response: This one can be difficult to respond to unless you see it clearly, such as in the following example, where more is known today than earlier in time... You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your information is known to have designed to side track this issue. As revealed by CIA operative Marita Lorenz under oath offered in court in E. Howard Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby, CIA operatives met with Jack Ruby in Dallas the night before the assassination of JFK to distribute guns and money. Clearly, Ruby was a coconspirator whose "Solidarist confession" was meant to sidetrack any serious investigation of the murder. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 20 - false evidence)? 21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Example: According to one OK bombing Grand Juror who violated the law to speak the truth, jurors were, contrary to law, denied the power of subpoena of witness of their choosing, denied the power of asking witnesses questions of their choosing, and relegated to hearing only evidence prosecution wished them to hear, evidence which clearly seemed fraudulent and intended to paint conclusions other than facts actually suggested. Proper response: There is usually no adequate response to this tactic except to complain loudly at any sign of its application, particularly with respect to any possible cover up. 22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively. Example: The False Memory Syndrome Foundation and American Family Foundation and American and Canadian Psychiatric Associations fall into this category, as their founding members and/or leadership include key persons associated with CIA Mind Control research. Not so curious, then, that (in a perhaps oversimplified explanation here) these organizations focus on, by means of their own "research findings", that there is no such thing as Mind Control. Proper response: Unless you are in a position to be well versed in the topic and know of the background and relationships involved in the opponent organization, you are well equipped to fight this tactic. 23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes. Example: To distract the public over the progress of a WTC bombing trial that seems to be uncovering nasty ties to the intelligence community, have an endless discussion of skaters whacking other skaters on the knee. To distract the public over the progress of the Waco trials that have the potential to reveal government sponsored murder, have an O.J. summer. To distract the public over an ever disintegrating McVeigh trial situation and the danger of exposing government involvements, come up with something else (any day now) to talk about -- keeping in the sports theme, how about sports fans shooting referees and players during a game and the whole gun control thing? Proper response: The best you can do is attempt to keep public debate and interest in the true issues alive and point out that the "news flap" or other evasive tactic serves the interests of your opponents. 24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats. Example: As experienced by certain proponents of friendly fire theories with respect to flight 800 -- send in FBI agents to intimidate and threaten that if they persisted further they would be subject to charges of aiding and abetting Iranian terrorists, of failing to register as a foreign agents, or any other trumped up charges. If this doesn't work, you can always plant drugs and bust them. Proper response: You have three defensive alternatives if you think yourself potential victim of this ploy. One is to stand and fight regardless. Another is to create for yourself an insurance policy which will point to your opponents in the event of any unpleasantness, a matter which requires superior intelligence information on your opponents and great care in execution to avoid dangerous pitfalls (see The Professional Paranoid by this author for suggestions on how this might be done). The last alternative is to cave in or run (same thing). 25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen. Example: Do a Robert Vesco and retire to the Caribbean. If you don't, somebody in your organization may choose to vanish you the way of Vince Foster or Ron Brown. Proper response: You will likely not have a means to attack this method, except to focus on the vanishing in hopes of uncovering it was by foul play as part of a deliberate cover up. Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven distinct traits: 1) They never actually discuss issues head on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility. 2) They tend to pick and choose their opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well. 3) They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussion in the particular public arena. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason. 4) They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength. 5) Their disdain for "conspiracy theorists" and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do. 6) An odd kind of "artificial" emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their presentation. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the "image" and are hot and cold with respect to emotions they pretend to have and the more calm or normal communications which are not emotional. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to "act their role in type" as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth. 7) There is also a tendacy to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it. I close with the first paragraph of the introduction to my book, Fatal Rebirth: Truth cannot live on a diet of secrets, withering within entangled lies. Freedom cannot live on a diet of lies, surrendering to the veil of oppression. The human spirit cannot live on a diet of oppression, becoming subservient in the end to the will of evil. God, as truth incarnate, will not long let stand a world devoted to such evil. Therefore, let us have the truth and freedom our spirits require... or let us die seeking these things, for without them, we shall surely and justly perish in an evil world. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 3 22:43:50 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA19482; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 22:39:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 22:39:40 -0700 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19980904053403.2df79c4a aapi.co.uk> X-Sender: jcollins aapi.co.uk X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: John Collins Subject: Re: Re: More gravity as a source of energy Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 06:43:00 +0100 Resent-Message-ID: <"YkxN51.0.Am4.Rqtxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22102 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Ross wrote - >To use the force of gravity to drive a weight you raise in order to get the >thing going is one thing. But, if it runs perpetually after that, then you >are doing something additional that is completely independent of the >gravitational field. You are doing something to deflect, or alter, the >"nature" of the field or the matter. No that is wrong. It cannot be independent of the gravitational field because, to repeat myself, it won't work if you remove the gravity effect (take into space). Deflecting the gravitational field or altering it is completely unnecessary and I'm sure that a guy who lived in 1712 wouldn't have known what you were talking about either. >You have no idea how many people I have met who wanted me to build a device >for them they knew would work, but they didn't have the first clue about >mechanics and it was obvious it would not. Me too! >I am just extremely confident that no device like you described will ever do >that to me. OK Ross, point taken. There are however others who hold a different viewpoint, and may wish to continue this discussion. John From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 00:27:26 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA10226; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 00:25:12 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 00:25:12 -0700 Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 08:24:18 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Polaron -vs- Phonon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Remi Cornwall Resent-Message-ID: <"ixF0Y2.0.hV2.NNvxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22103 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Sorry. Some people are so serious. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 02:17:11 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA32658; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 02:16:31 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 02:16:31 -0700 Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 10:15:38 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: heat reuse, promising approach Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Remi Cornwall Resent-Message-ID: <"sjDAk.0.3-7.l_wxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22104 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Vo, Look, I was only teasing, taking the mickey out of Fred's thread. I'm intrigued, I want to know what makes you think that striaghtforward conductivity can give rise to ou. Please, eculidate, give mechanisms explain your intuition a bit more, trojan horses 'n all. How do you tap zero point? I know of only one way. I'll be working on ferromagnetics near the Curie point this weekend. Trying to figure a circuit that let's me bias the ferromagnetic material into the mu >> 1 region without doing electrical work. I want the heat to supply the field energy so that I can get the field to collapse and generate electricity. It's like this:- You have two phases: ordered (ferromagnetic) and disordered (paramagnetic). Above Curie temp, paramagnetic (mu = 1.something). Apply a magnetic field and the material becomes ferromagnetic (mu >> 1). So wind an inductor but one must not do magnetic/electrical work, one has to some how trick it with an imposed H field so that it supplies the induction B in the coil. I may have a way. By the way, there is stacks of energy in heat. Very compact devices could be made. A litre of water is what, 100mm^3, drop its temp by 1K per second and generate > 4KW. It can be done. Realistic mechanisms, realistic materials. This is engineering. Remi. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 03:23:20 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA18510; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 03:19:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 03:19:59 -0700 Message-ID: <35EFBDED.DFF985A0 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 13:16:13 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex Subject: Papers from Origin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"0fsjW3.0.6X4.Exxxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22105 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Very interesting papers are being released by Origin Organization, http://www.the-origin.org/. Papers are also in the archive of the xxx.lanl.gov. For papers goto http://www.the-origin.org/indxpprs.htm Notes: Papers are in form of GIF files, any browser can read them. Last paper is released today and may take the most interest of the vortexians. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 03:24:57 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA19138; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 03:22:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 03:22:10 -0700 Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:21:06 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: pm confusion Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Remi Cornwall Resent-Message-ID: <"KDLL-2.0.xg4.Izxxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22106 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Vo, By the way, there is no perpetual motion, only perpetuating motion in that the device taps into a limitless source of energy. Yes, the machine wears out, but with the energy is generated, you build another. BTW, don't bother we a certain person's telling it like it is, you inventors know nothing about business. He quite happily supports the leeches of the tax system to spend money on speculative research whereas he wouldn't give an inventor time even for theories. No doubt he thinks it okay that worldwide, those who defined the modern age don't receive the value of what they invented but he is quite happy that pop stars, sportspeople (kicking a god damn ball for christ sake) and the feckless receive. To add insult to injury, we are geeks. New energy will kick them into touch. Remi. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 05:09:26 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA28036; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 05:07:53 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 05:07:53 -0700 Message-ID: <35EFD6CA.10B8 sprintmail.com> Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 06:02:18 -0600 From: "Frederick J. Sparber" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: magnon For Remi's Research. :-) X-URL: file:///C:\EB/_11.htm#first_hit Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------343823C6336F" Resent-Message-ID: <"t9ERL2.0.zr6.OWzxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22107 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. --------------343823C6336F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit file:///C:\EB/_11.htm#first_hit --------------343823C6336F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="_11.htm" Britannica CD Help magnon, small quantity of energy corresponding to a specific decrease in magnetic strength that travels as a unit through a magnetic substance. In a magnetic substance, such as iron, each atom acts as a small individual magnet. These atomic magnets tend to point in the same direction, so that their magnetic fields reinforce each other. When the direction of one atomic magnet is reversed, the total magnetic strength of the group is decreased. A definite amount of energy is required to reverse such a magnet. This energy, involving the decrease in magnetic strength of the group of atoms, constitutes a magnon. According to the laws of quantum mechanics, the reversal of a single atomic magnet is equivalent to a partial reversal of all the atomic magnets in a group. This partial reversal spreads through the solid as a wave of discrete energy transferal. This wave is called a spin wave, because the magnetism of each atom is produced by the spin of unpaired electrons in its structure. Thus, a magnon is a quantized spin wave. As the temperature of a magnetic substance is increased, its magnetic strength decreases, corresponding to the presence of a large number of magnons. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright (c) 1995 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All Rights Reserved ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Related Propaedia Topics: Magnetic phenomena in metals: diamagnetism, paramagnetism, ferromagnetism, antiferromagnetism [Image] Show Index links. --------------343823C6336F-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 05:27:08 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA03088; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 05:24:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 05:24:40 -0700 Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 13:23:46 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: magnon For Remi's Research. :-) In-Reply-To: <35EFD6CA.10B8 sprintmail.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Remi Cornwall Resent-Message-ID: <"e6-96.0.1m.7mzxr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22108 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Two types of people in this world: the simple and logical; the disordered bamboozler. I do not see the relavancy of your magnon. Quantum mechanics offer excellent opportunities for people who do not even understand the basic operation of its toolset (partial diff eqns., matrix algebra, Hilbert spaces, quantised co-ords)to bamboozle with concepts always seemingly to end in 'on', 'tron' etc. Simple fact, the energy stored in an inductor is 1/2BH. If once can impose an H field on the specimin without doing electrical work, the ferromagnetic substance just beyond it's Curie point will oblige you by supplying the induction field B. Yes, the mechanism of ferromagnetism is qm in nature, being based on exchange coupling and ultimately the exclusion principle. It serves as a very common-or-garden (no exoitic materials) of cohering random motion. It can be done. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 05:52:46 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA13113; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 05:49:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 05:49:52 -0700 Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 13:48:57 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: magnon For Remi's Research. :-) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Remi Cornwall Resent-Message-ID: <"EMXHu1.0.pC3.k7-xr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22109 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frederick, Keep it simple and logical - bottom up to you. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 05:54:42 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA14152; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 05:51:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 05:51:54 -0700 Message-ID: <012b01bdd802$0830ec00$5d8f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Subject: Re: magnon For Remi's Research. :-) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 06:46:19 -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: <"atboO3.0.2T3.f9-xr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22110 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Friday, September 04, 1998 6:26 AM Subject: Re: magnon For Remi's Research. :-) LOL! Way to go, Remi. Keep dropping those high-powered phrases and you will be in Med School in no time. :-) Fred Remi wrote: >Two types of people in this world: the simple and logical; the disordered >bamboozler. > >I do not see the relavancy of your magnon. Quantum mechanics offer >excellent opportunities for people who do not even understand the basic >operation of its toolset (partial diff eqns., matrix algebra, Hilbert >spaces, quantised co-ords)to bamboozle with concepts always seemingly to >end in 'on', 'tron' etc. > >Simple fact, the energy stored in an inductor is 1/2BH. If once can >impose an H field on the specimin without doing electrical work, the >ferromagnetic substance just beyond it's Curie point will oblige you by >supplying the induction field B. > >Yes, the mechanism of ferromagnetism is qm in nature, being based on >exchange coupling and ultimately the exclusion principle. It serves as a >very common-or-garden (no exoitic materials) of cohering random motion. > >It can be done. > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 06:08:42 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA19426; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 06:07:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 06:07:37 -0700 Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 14:06:41 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: magnon For Remi's Research. :-) In-Reply-To: <012b01bdd802$0830ec00$5d8f85ce default> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Remi Cornwall Resent-Message-ID: <"MKq5v.0.Ql4.OO-xr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22111 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Let's drop it Frederick. You are a mediocre little prat who won't achieve or has achieved anything. We can see from your surfing of your encarta, eb, mgh cd roms that you do nothing more than juggle information and display superficial knowledge. You know that. You are typical. You wouldn't know a research path if it hit you between your crossed eyes. You flit from one idea to another like the dilatant you are without being able to master a single concept. Logic evades you. Why do I pick on you? Your just typical sh.t wasting bandwidth and sapping credibility. Just what have you contributed, what can you say you've done to assist the solutions of problems? No more idle prattle with you. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 06:59:08 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA02182; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 06:57:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 06:57:11 -0700 Message-ID: <014301bdd80b$25e5d0e0$5d8f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Subject: Re: magnon For Remi's Research. :-) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 07:50:57 -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: <"2JEg51.0.vX.s6_xr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22112 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Remi wrote: (Snip all of the Platitudes) :-) ROFL! Gee Remi, I've never had the pleasure of meeting anyone as nice as you, before. :-) I Rest my case, Bill. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 07:24:55 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA12921; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 07:23:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 07:23:33 -0700 Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 15:22:39 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: attitude Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Remi Cornwall Resent-Message-ID: <"SOOrz1.0.V93.aV_xr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22113 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Who cares about being nice? People start out nice and end up knarled on exposure to the mass. Though, still have a heart of gold but don't be a goose. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 07:48:33 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA21307; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 07:44:01 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 07:44:01 -0700 Comments: ( Received on ftpbox.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com ) Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com Message-ID: <35EFFCEC.2BB733E9 css.mot.com> Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 09:45:00 -0500 From: John Steck Organization: Motorola PCS - Rapid Tooling Applications X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: More gravity as a source of energy References: <1.5.4.16.19980904053403.2df79c4a aapi.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"W4vlF2.0.jC5.lo_xr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22114 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John Collins wrote: > Ross wrote - > >To use the force of gravity to drive a weight you raise in order to get the > >thing going is one thing. But, if it runs perpetually after that, then you > >are doing something additional that is completely independent of the > >gravitational field. You are doing something to deflect, or alter, the > >"nature" of the field or the matter. > > No that is wrong. It cannot be independent of the gravitational field > because, to repeat myself, it won't work if you remove the gravity effect > (take into space). Deflecting the gravitational field or altering it is > completely unnecessary and I'm sure that a guy who lived in 1712 wouldn't > have known what you were talking about either. John- Gravity is a force that operates in only one direction. Over simplified, it is an expression of entropy; higher energy state of a mass (potential energy at x elevation) to a lower energy state of said mass (potential energy at x-1 elevation). Preventing this transition, you get "weight". Utilizing this transition, you get "work". To go in the opposite direction you need to: 1) Apply additional work to increase the available PE to do more work (x-1) +1 2) Periodically negate the weight to restore the available PE to do work (x-1) = x 3) ??? If you claim #1, where does the additional work to reset PE come from? If you claim #2, how does this device periodically zero out the entropy bias? If you claim #3, please explain.... I do not deny the possibility of such a device, but I share Ross's skepticism. Why? If this mechanism performs as proposed, where does all the excess PE generated go that isn't used to raise 70lb blocks? Seeing as this supposedly is a 100% mechanical system, wouldn't any excess energy generated/manipulated cause the main flywheel to perpetually accelerate? Where is the PE bleed off to prevent this mechanism from eventually flying apart? You can't have it both ways, controlled equalibrium AND biased equalibrium at the same time..... IMHPO, conditions #1 or #2 still must be satisfied, but I would be very happy to be wrong.... 8^) Shall we dance around the bushes more? or can we discuss the actual mechanism now? -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John E. Steck Senior Mechanical Engineer Rapid Tooling Applications Motorola, Libertyville, IL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 08:41:28 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA08123; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 08:37:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 08:37:21 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980904112851.007e0100 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 11:28:51 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Joule's law In-Reply-To: <01dc01bdd65f$add50d20$478f85ce default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"o1DoV2.0.o-1.ma0yr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22115 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 04:51 AM 9/2/98 -0600, Frederick wrote: > > >An Olde Proverb: "There is no such thing as a Stupid Question, only Stupid >Answers". :-) > >Hope this helps. Regards, Frederick > Autant des hommes, autant d'avis Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 09:04:41 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA15981; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 09:02:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 09:02:55 -0700 Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:47:43 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Thin wall CF cell Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809041203_MC2-5871-3B5F compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"59DBw3.0.dv3.ky0yr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22116 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Rich Murray writes: I know thin metal foils are used with vacuum chambers and accelerators to allow beams to emerge into the open air, so they have to withstand 1 atm pressure. I do not think they are in the micron (0.001 mm) range. They would pop. You cannot seal a vacuum chamber hole with a piece of aluminum foil or plastic wrap. I am not sure how thick plastic wrap is, but it is in the 10s of microns range I believe. Around 0.5 microns you see iridescent interference, as with soap bubbles or thin film mother-of-pearl. I think that is the right scale. Perhaps the best geometry would be for the foil to be the bottom of the cell. That is the normal configuration. It could be . . . allowed to simply sit on a ring gasket, allowing the weight of the electrolyte to hold it in place. I do not think this configuration would work. Try it with a plastic cup and some aluminum foil or plastic wrap. It will leak. I predict that just about any combination of gaskets, seals, glue and whatnot you come up with will leak, and ruin the camera mounted underneath the cell. Perhaps you could orient the cylinder sideways. This project is interesting, but based on what I know of similar studies, it may be much more difficult than you imagine, and the results will probably not be very clear cut. In the first message you suggested you could skip the calorimetry and look for hot spots alone. I think you will find hot spots whether there is excess heat or not. An electrochemical cell is a dynamic environment, with constant small physical and chemical changes. Salts build up on the surface of an electrode; power fluctuates; the electrode corrodes; bubbles build up and isolate areas, cutting off power momentarily; the anode to cathode geometry shifts around . . . Lots of small events happen. These changes are apparent to the naked eye. You can see the bubbles forming in different patterns, you can see tarnishing and discoloration originate from the lead wire attached to the cathode. You are looking for only 0.6 watts excess in a 15 watt background, on a small, hot, noisy, ever-changing surface. I do not think you can detect that level of heat without sophisticated calorimetry. With a Be diaphragm cathode, you are looking for x-rays, which have no significant background. Ultraviolet and infrared heat are always present during electrolysis. If the 4% increase was localized in one or two spots a few millimeters wide you would see them, but I think it is more likely spread out in hundreds or perhaps millions of spots just below the surface of the cathode. The heat might be blurred before it reaches the top layer of atoms in the cathode. Storms and others have often said that the active spots in a cathode are probably scattered around in small localized areas. We do not know how small these areas might be. The evidence we have for the scale is from the gold Ohmori cathodes, and the transmutations found in Pd and Ni cathodes with SIMS. The Au explosions are so small they can barely be seen with a light microscope. To measure the scale and separation between them you need an SEM. I have no idea how big the Pd and Ni transmuted areas are. The gold cathode may not be representative material, because the reaction was confined to rough areas, scraped with glass. I do not think thin film Pd reactions will be so localized. You are trying to find out whether there are spots and if so, how big are they. Your tool may be on the wrong scale. Storms tried to locate nuclear-active areas with a tiny luggin capillary, which he moved across the surface in a raster pattern search. The last I heard, he failed. He thought the resolution of the capillary tip was not fine enough. I do not recall how he moved it. Perhaps piezoelectric devices such as the ones they use on a scanning tunneling microscope would work. Anyway, my point is that if he could not see anything with that arrangement, the active spots are probably too small to be seen with a camera. He knows the surface as a whole has a marked change in activity, which can be measured on average with the capillary. This is like saying that on average, for the entire surface, the heat has increased 4%, which you measure calorimetry. (Standard calorimetry always measures averages for the whole system, never individual parts. It cannot distinguish between heat originating at the anode, the cathode, or the joule heater. If it can, it isn't working right.) The problem is the background heat. If the cathode produced 600 mW of CF heat after death with no 15 watt background, anyone could spot the spots. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 09:09:40 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA17718; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 09:05:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 09:05:35 -0700 Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 09:06:38 -0700 Message-Id: <199809041606.JAA22631 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: Final: Re: More gravity as a source of energy Resent-Message-ID: <"61Klf1.0.YK4.D_0yr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22117 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >John Collins wrote: >> Ross wrote - >> >To use the force of gravity to drive a weight you raise in order to get the >> >thing going is one thing. But, if it runs perpetually after that, then you >> >are doing something additional that is completely independent of the >> >gravitational field. You are doing something to deflect, or alter, the >> >"nature" of the field or the matter. >> >> No that is wrong. It cannot be independent of the gravitational field >> because, to repeat myself, it won't work if you remove the gravity effect >> (take into space). Deflecting the gravitational field or altering it is >> completely unnecessary and I'm sure that a guy who lived in 1712 wouldn't >> have known what you were talking about either. > >John- > >Gravity is a force that operates in only one direction. Over simplified, it is >an expression of entropy; higher energy state of a mass (potential energy at x >elevation) to a lower energy state of said mass (potential energy at x-1 >elevation). Preventing this transition, you get "weight". Utilizing this >transition, you get "work". > >To go in the opposite direction you need to: >1) Apply additional work to increase the available PE to do more work (x-1) >+1 >2) Periodically negate the weight to restore the available PE to do work (x-1) >= x >3) ??? > >If you claim #1, where does the additional work to reset PE come from? >If you claim #2, how does this device periodically zero out the entropy bias? >If you claim #3, please explain.... > >I do not deny the possibility of such a device, but I share Ross's skepticism. > >Why? If this mechanism performs as proposed, where does all the excess PE >generated go that isn't used to raise 70lb blocks? Seeing as this supposedly is >a 100% mechanical system, wouldn't any excess energy generated/manipulated cause >the main flywheel to perpetually accelerate? Where is the PE bleed off to >prevent this mechanism from eventually flying apart? You can't have it both >ways, controlled equalibrium AND biased equalibrium at the same time..... > >IMHPO, conditions #1 or #2 still must be satisfied, but I would be very happy to >be wrong.... 8^) Shall we dance around the bushes more? or can we discuss the >actual mechanism now? Absolutely correct John (Steck) I am in complete accord and will state it yet another way. But to John Collins, let me say this. You are writing to probably the most open forum with a technical background you could hope to find. Many on this group would purchase a working machine from you if you had one. And many of us would analyze and show you why your ideas (or the original inventors) will not work, or what to try if there were any remote chance. The fact that you are not bringing designs forward to analyze means that you are behaving in exactly the identical manner as did your predicessors. And so you to, may try to make it work, claim to be really close, and go to your grave with the complete confidence of a fidele, thus perpetuating the myth. If you think the ideas are so wonderful, why not just give them to humanity, assuming you don't hvae the money to develop this technology. Any way, I am in complete accord with Steck who shows you why the thing almost certainly doesn't work despite your confidence. He is trying to explain to you the nature of "work" and "energy" and "gravity". I was trying to do the same, but you completely missed the point I was trying to make, and you thought I was wrong which I was not. The problem is, it sounds to me like you don't have even the basic training enough to understand what John said and we know you didn't understand what I said because you told me above that I was wrong. John understood exactly what I was saying and so he wrote out the identical statements in different words. You are not recognizing that we are both trying to explain something to you that you are not understanding. Now, as for any reports of this thing accelerating the flywheel: If you reduce the friction of a flywheel to zero, then the amount of work (presumably from the falling weights due to the gravitational PE John described), needed to keep the flywheel spinning "for weeks" is exactly ZERO. You only need to use up some of the energy in order to accelerate the rotation of the fly wheel. It sounds to me, like this guy way back when, figured out that by reducing the friction in the journals, the thing would spin longer and longer and longer, up to the point that he, and others, believed that he had really accomplished something dramatic, meaning, that he thought he had built a PMM, or that he was close to it. And I have no doubt that he could set up a demonstration where he lifted some other weights, even very heavy ones, heavier than the weights driving the thing. But that still is not producing ***NET*** WORK and ergo, net energy. This is my last post on this particular device unless some definite plans or designs are discussed. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 10:54:36 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA26574; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 10:53:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 10:53:03 -0700 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19980904174714.2bbf553a aapi.co.uk> X-Sender: jcollins aapi.co.uk X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: John Collins Subject: Re: More gravity as a source of energy Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 18:56:10 +0100 Resent-Message-ID: <"jVsR51.0.3V6.-Z2yr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22118 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 09:45 04/09/98 -0500, John Berry wrote: >John Collins wrote: >> Ross wrote - >> >To use the force of gravity to drive a weight you raise in order to get the >> >thing going is one thing. But, if it runs perpetually after that, then you >> >are doing something additional that is completely independent of the >> >gravitational field. >> JC -No that is wrong. It cannot be independent of the gravitational field >> because, it won't work if you remove the gravity effect (take into space). >Gravity is a force that operates in only one direction. JB - Over simplified, it is an expression of entropy; higher energy state of a mass (potential energy at x elevation) to a lower energy state of said mass (potential energy at x-1 elevation). Preventing this transition, you get "weight". Utilizing this transition, you get "work". JC- Thanks for the lecture John, but it wasn't necessary, I assure you :-). Let me put my position more clearly. You are employing the term potential energy in your calculations, I am saying that we can disregard PE. You see Bessler's later wheels required a slight push to get them moving. Once the first weight had dropped the machine began to accelerate up to a certain speed (26 RPM). Gravity is, as you know, a conservative force. A conservative exhibits PE, but not Kinetic energy. PE is motionless, KE is force in action/motion. Since Bessler's wheel required to be in motion before its mechanism began to work, it was manifesting kinetic energy and it was that energy that Bessler was tapping, not potential energy. Of course you may argue that the first wheels were supposed to spontaneously begin to turn, and therefore appeared to be using PE, but I would argue that the reason for this is because they were always out of balance because they could only rotate one way. The later models being able to turn either way, were always balanced and therefore required the unbalancing action of being turned in one direction or the other. I have conducted demonstrations of a similar reaction in the Savonius windmill. If you place two identical windmills on the same vertical axis, but with one designed to turn in the opposite direction to the first one, the result is identical to Bessler's wheel. There is no tendency to turn in the wind unless you first begin it turning. Then it speeds up to a rate half that of one on its own, just as Bessler's later wheels did, in comparison to his earlier ones. John Collins John Collins Author of 'Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?' - for more information and details on ordering visit my web site at http://www.free-energy.co.uk From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 11:09:25 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA00241; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:07:50 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:07:50 -0700 Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 14:05:57 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Final: Re: More gravity as . . . Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809041408_MC2-5863-7F3C compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"HaoFY3.0.d3.rn2yr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22120 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Ross Tessien writes: The fact that you [Collins] are not bringing designs forward to analyze means that you are behaving in exactly the identical manner as did your predicessors. . . . That isn't fair to Collins. He has not described the machine here, but he wrote a book which does include a short description of the machine and some diagrams. In my opinion, it has too much documentary evidence of who said what, and what agreements were made or broken. The book does not include a step by step expository description or complete modern diagrams of what Collins thinks the machine looked like, but perhaps he isn't sure. The device is S shaped in cross section, similar to a Savonius windmill. This is a windmill with a vertical axle. Seen from the top, the vane surfaces are "S" shaped and the mill always turns in one direction (clockwise or counterclockwise) no matter which direction the wind comes from. These are cheap to make and they were popular in the 1960s and '70s. In a thought provoking statement, Collins says, "No one, to my knowledge, has ever suggested that a Savonius windmill will not work because one side of it could not move *against* the wind." My response is that no one thinks gravity resembles a compressible moving fluid, like air, and the physics of a device pushed by moving air are quite different from those of a device pulled by gravity. As far as I know, there is nothing like a Bernoulli effect for gravity. It sounds to me, like this guy way back when, figured out that by reducing the friction in the journals, the thing would spin longer and longer and longer, up to the point that he, and others, believed that he had really accomplished something dramatic . . . That cannot be. The wheel was spun in air, not a vacuum. Even if the friction of the bearings was reduced to nearly zero with a modern magnetic bearing, the wheel would soon stop turning because of air resistance. It was made of wood with protrusions, it would have stirred the air considerably. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 11:09:37 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA00212; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:07:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:07:48 -0700 Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 14:06:08 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Patriot missile dispute Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809041408_MC2-5863-7F3D compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"jf0Qc1.0.A3.pn2yr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22119 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Robert I. Eachus says the dispute during Congressional hearings was bogus; the missiles really did work, and the experts know it. He says it was a political or marketing dispute, and the anti-Patriot side was dissembling. I cannot judge this. I could see that two groups of experts apparently disagreed during the hearings, and they both seemed to have an impressive array of facts to back up their cases. That brings us back to my original point, which is still valid even if the Patriot dispute was bogus. In the Bessler affair we have two groups of experts aligned against one another. Some say black, some say white. Maybe one side was dissembling, the way Eachus says the opposition was during the Patriot debate. Or maybe both sides were honest. Mike Carrell and John Collins have pointed to the historical record of debates and strong statements by eminent scientists like Leibniz. I point to similar groups of eminent scientists going before Congress, making similarly strong statements, which prove nothing. We need data, not debates. We need specific facts and a design we can replicate now, not history. The issue can only be settled by replication. The machine is simple in its design and it should be easier to replicate than, say, an Arata cell. I am 99.999% sure the Bessler device does not work, because there are no working models and because a tremendous body of established laws and observations mitigates against it. This is not true of cold fusion, by the way. There are no theories that show it cannot happen, despite what opponents say. Only a few hundred people have closely investigated the behavior or hyperloaded metal hydrides, and most of them found excess heat and nuclear effects. Thousand of people have tried to make weight driven perpetual motion machines but they all failed . . . except *maybe* Bessler. No other PPM has a credible reports from a scientist of Leibniz's caliber. This report should give anyone pause, and reserve that last 0.001% uncertainty. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 12:16:14 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA21904; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 12:13:53 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 12:13:53 -0700 Message-ID: <35F03BFD.A31B590E bellsouth.net> Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 15:14:05 -0400 From: Terry Blanton Reply-To: commengr bellsouth.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Superconducting Tungsten Detector Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"_tmvH3.0.AM5.nl3yr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22121 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: From: http://www-leland.stanford.edu/dept/news/release/980902tesdetector.html New Optical Detector Could Revolutionize Astronomy Source: Ron Baalke BAALKE kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov Thu, 3 Sep 1998 15:04:42 GMT Stanford University CONTACT: David F. Salisbury, News Service, (650) 725-1944; e-mail: david.salisbury stanford.edu Physicists at Stanford have developed a new optical detector so sensitive that it can clock the arrival of a single particle of light and measure its energy with exceptional precision. When applied to light coming from celestial objects, the device's ability to directly measure the location, arrival time, and energy of individual photons could have a revolutionary impact on optical astronomy, say its inventors, Stanford physics Professor Blas Cabrera and his research team. Not only can this detector measure all of an individual photon's important attributes, but it can do so throughout the infrared, optical and ultraviolet portions of the spectrum, the physicists report in the Aug. 10 issue of the journal Applied Physics Letters. The basic sensor, called a superconducting transition edge sensor (TES), was invented with Department of Energy support as part of a physics experiment called the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search and patented by Stanford in 1997. The experiment is being operated on campus and involves more than 40 scientists from eight institutions, Stanford, University of California-Berkeley, University of California-Santa Barbara, Case Western Reserve University, University of Santa Clara, San Francisco State University, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Fermilab. The sensor is a critical element in a new detector designed to detect elementary particles called WIMPs. These Weakly Interacting Massive Particles have been proposed as one possible explanation for the missing mass in the universe. Analyses of the rotation of visible galaxies have convinced scientists that as much as 50 percent of the matter that galaxies contain must be invisible to telescopes. Although WIMPS should be virtually invisible, scientists calculate that they should occasionally shake up the nuclei in crystalline material, and TES sensors have been developed to detect the heat produced by such interactions. The new optical version of TES, developed with support from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, consists of squares of tungsten film that are 20 microns (about a human hair width) on a side. When the sheets are cooled down to a temperature of 80 thousandths of a degree above absolute zero, the tungsten becomes superconducting, able to carry electric current without resistance. Tungsten's transition between ordinary metal and superconductor is exceptionally sharp, so extremely small changes in the material's temperature give rise to large changes in its electrical properties. "The sharp resistive transition made it potentially an extremely sensitive calorimeter," says Cabrera, "but it was very difficult to keep it within the narrow temperature range required." In 1994, Cabrera and Kent Irwin, who is now at the National Institute for Standards and Technology in Boulder, solved the control problem by borrowing a technique that is widely used in the design of stereo amplifiers: negative feedback. They placed the sensor in a special circuit that produces a weak electrical current that automatically keeps the material at its critical transition temperature. The sensor is cooled slightly below the transition temperature and the electrical current raises its temperature to the critical value. When the energy from an individual photon reaches the tungsten, it heats up the electrons in the material. This heating causes a slight increase in the electrical resistance of the film. The greater resistance, in turn, causes a decrease in the electrical heating that exactly equals the amount of energy that the photon deposited. Not only does this keep the film at the right temperature but it also gives the scientists a precise measurement of the photon's energy and its arrival time. The new sensors have a number of potential uses. Irwin and his colleagues at NIST have customized TES detectors for use in an X-ray spectrometer. Using this technology, they have created the highest resolution, high-energy spectrometer in the world. The semiconductor industry is very interested in using this instrument to locate small-scale surface contamination that is a barrier to the continued miniaturization of integrated circuitry. According to current plans, the next generation X-ray satellite, called Constellation-X, will include a TES spectrometer to aid in the identification of the chemical compounds that make up the gas clouds that float between stars and galaxies. One of the most exciting applications for the sensors could come from mounting them on existing optical telescopes. "By providing us with information about the energy of each photon and the time when it arrives, these detectors can provide important information about some of the key questions in astronomy," says physics Professor Roger Romani. He is working with Cabrera and graduate students Aaron Miller, Tali Figueroa and Sae Woo Nam on a trial application of the system on the 24-inch student telescope at Stanford this fall. Over the last 25 years, astronomers have converted their telescopes from photographic film to electronic CCD detectors similar to those used in camcorders. This conversion has increased the power of the telescopes by 30 to 100 times. But, like film, CCDs only provide information about the position of photons. As with the human eye or a camcorder, many photons passing through various filters are needed to get a crude estimate of the color or average energy. More complicated electronic systems, called microchanneltrons, can obtain information about photon arrival times but not their energies. Currently, the physicists can only make TES detectors with a few pixels. Even with this limitation, however, they should be able to make meaningful new measurements of time-varying cosmic phenomena such as pulsars and gas-eating black holes, Romani says. Once they have a rudimentary TES array attached to Stanford's small student telescope, the scientists will make trial observations of the powerful pulsar in the Crab Nebula. A pulsar is a rapidly spinning neutron star that emits radio waves with clock-like regularity. By recording the way that the energy of the visible light from the pulsar varies on time scales as short as a thousandth of a second, the physicists hope to gain new insights into the outstanding question of how spinning neutron stars produce optical light. By examining how the distortion of the light pulses vary at different energies, it might also be possible to see evidence of the relativistic twisting of space that should take place in the neutron star's vicinity, Romani speculates. If the experiment with the small telescope is a success, the scientists hope to put a larger array of optical TES sensors on the 10-meter Hobby Eberly telescope in Texas. In addition to studies of faint black holes and neutron stars, the team also hopes to demonstrate that the device will be a powerful tool for measuring cosmic distances. Because the universe is expanding, the farther away objects are the faster they are receding. This motion causes redshift, the apparent reddening of light coming from receding objects. The larger an object's redshift the further away it must be. Because the speed of light is constant, objects with the highest redshifts are also the oldest objects in the visible universe. An array of TES devices could in principle obtain the redshift of every object in each image that a telescope makes. Currently, astronomers must follow up their initial observations of a new object with a lengthy spectrographic analysis to measure its redshift. An ultimate application of this new technology would be to equip the next generation of space telescope with a thousand-by-thousand element array of TES sensors. Such a system would allow astronomers the measure the redshift of even the most distant objects, those too faint for even the biggest telescopes on Earth to resolve. In its deep field mode, for example, the Hubble space telescope has produced images of objects that are a thousand times fainter than the glow of the dark night sky and are invisible to Earth-based telescopes. Redshift information about these and other similar objects could provide astronomers with a more complete picture of the size and shape of the universe, the distribution of galaxies within it, and how this has changed over time. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 12:27:01 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA25006; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 12:24:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 12:24:28 -0700 Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 15:20:52 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Savonius windmill analogy Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809041524_MC2-5871-AD23 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"ilnC.0.Z66.gv3yr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22122 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex When I posted the previous message, I saw that Collins mentioned the Savonius windmill again. I wrote: . . . no one thinks gravity resembles a compressible moving fluid, like air, and the physics of a device pushed by moving air are quite different from those of a device pulled by gravity. As far as I know, there is nothing like a Bernoulli effect for gravity. Let me be a little more specific. Suppose you set up a Savonius windmill in a wind tunnel. You observe streamlines and measure the force of the air at six points horizontally across the back of the tunnel behind the windmill. You will find that the air streams on one side are roiled more than the other, and the air is moving less swiftly on one side, with less force. Energy has been extracted from the air. If you set up a line of Windmills in a long tunnel, and you blow air down the tunnel, the first one in line will spin fastest, the second will be a little slower . . . and the last one will not move. Nothing like this happens with a Bessler device. The force of gravity remains the same under both sides. No energy is removed from any "stream" of gravity or gravity waves, or whatever the heck it is. There is no attenuation. You might set a 100 Bessler devices on top of the other, and give them all a wind-up spin. The one on the bottom would have no effect on the one on top. I said the analogy to the windmill was thought provoking. I did not mean it was convincing or valid. It's an analogy, not a physics model. Gravity is not wind. I do not find any of the technical arguments in this book convincing. The main conclusion I draw from this book is that what I call "Inventor's Syndrome" -- the self-destructive, paranoid secrecy endemic in CF and o-u research -- should be renamed "Bessler's Syndrome." The guy had the worst case in recorded history! It is true there were no patent laws back then, so he faced a tougher situation than inventors do today, but that is really no excuse. Suppose the Wheel was real and he had revealed it to the public. He could have found ways to make a lot of money even after people took the idea. He should have known that! He was a clockmaker. Clockmakers made excellent money back then. Their services were widely in demand. There were no secrets in the clock business. Any master clock maker could climb a tower in the center of town and look at his rival's machine. They had no intellectual property protection but they made scads of money anyway. Bessler could have gone into business selling the wheels. He could have established a reputation as an expert and he would have raked in more money than most carriage makers, clockmakers, jewelers, printers, and other skilled craftsman. By 1700, guild secrecy in Europe had vanished. Textbooks were widely available in vernacular languages for every practical subject from wine making, to mining, to dentistry. Some were so good they remained in print for 150 years. Naturally, the textbook alone was not enough. You needed practical experience. But that was Bessler's strong suit. He could have set up shop, sold wheels, and jumped ahead of the competition. The same situation applies today to software. There are no patents and few secrets in that trade. Any skilled person who buys application software will learn about in a few weeks. (Operating system software and complex programs like Word Perfect are much harder to reverse engineer.) Incidentally, I have not got the foggiest idea what gravity is. After my daughter took physics and chemistry I asked her: What do you think gravity is? She answered without a moment's hesitation "a meter per second per second." Philistine that I, I like that answer. I like the one in "Physics Made Simple" too: "Notice that Newton's law allows us to calculate the force of gravity but does not tell us what gravitation is or why it exists. These are questions of philosophy, not physics." This book is okay, but it has a dumb error on the previous page: "Gravity increases with mass but decreases with distance; the further apart two objects are, the less the force of attraction between them. That is why astronauts experience weightlessness once they are a certain distance from earth." Yikes! True when you fly to the moon, but he should have mentioned free fall. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 12:36:30 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA27964; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 12:34:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 12:34:22 -0700 Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 12:37:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Ostrowski X-Sender: jimostr mailserv1 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Analog scope as a source of fast light pulses Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"d1Xp.0.rq6.z24yr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22123 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Vo, Here is a description of a light speed measurement demo that can be performed with an analog scope . This was posted some months back on vortex but it may be worth a repost for the new people. Corridor Light Speed Demo [*] . f| () | . e | /_| | . . g | . . | . . L _ _ | | |: - - - - \| - - -()=()- - -[ | g c .-|_| / | a /_/ |_ h [~] b An anolog oscilloscope (a) ,Tektronics type 545 or equivalent is the primary instrument in the system (a) and (b) by measuring the length of time it takes for a light beam to traverse two different paths of known length. The speed is then determined from the time - distance relation. A pulse generator (b) is connected to the horizontal sweep trigger input of the oscilloscope so that it will sweep out a time base of .1 usec/div (cm) on the screen at the rate of 250 sweeps/sec. At the far left of the screen a piece of black tape with a small hole in it's center is placed so that when the sweep begins the hole will be illuminated by the trace from behind. The light that comes through this hole will be picked up by projection lens (c)(f=150mm) and colimated so that it will be reflected by a mirror (d) about 15 m away, falls into a condenser lens (e) (220 mm in diameter) and is focused on photomultiplier (f). Two small prisms (g) are placed so that a part of the light beam is diverted onto a much shorter path into the photomultiplier. The signal from the multiplier is input to the y amplifier of the scope without intermediate amplification. Screens are used to block unwanted light paths (not shown). A tv camera , h, can be used to monitor the output of the scope screen, if desired . [ . ] ____________________/_____________/ tape w/hole |<-10^-7 sec->| / / short path ../ / ...long path With the room darkened , the pulse generator is turned on and the photomultiplier pickup causes two vertical displacements as shown above. The distance between them can be measured and converted to time units through the scope sweep rate. The path difference is the distance from the first prism to the mirror plus the distance from the mirror to the second prism minus the separation distance of the two prisms, all distances measured from the reflecting surfaces. CAUTION: Cover the photomultiplier before turning on the lights. Electroluminescent nightlights can be used to iluminate the apparatus that must be operated. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 12:39:57 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA28822; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 12:36:27 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 12:36:27 -0700 Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 12:39:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Ostrowski X-Sender: jimostr mailserv1 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Scope cameras? WAS: Re: Oscilloscopes Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"84eHN1.0.927.w44yr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22124 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: > Vo: > > Several times, I've heard something called a 'scope camera' mentioned. > What is it anyways? A scope camera is just a regular 35 mm or polaroid with an objective (front) lens that can focus extremely close-up and attaches to 4 screw mounts on a tek or other scope with a rectangular light shroud that also serves as a mount for the camera. I'm not saying analog scope are better or worse than digital ones , it depends on what you are trying to do with either. I have three scopes only one of them is digital . To really evaulate the question one needs to know what one is trying to do. A scope camera shot will not prove time coincidence of phase shifts during a frequency sweep even if you are just using an xy plot of vert vs horiz inputs if the highest and lowest frequencies appear alternately at a rate faster than the camera's shutter speed. You will just see a lissajous blur on the camera just as it will appear to your eyes. Go ahead ask me what lissajous is. Jim Ostrowski From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 12:56:27 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA02395; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 12:52:50 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 12:52:50 -0700 Comments: ( Received on ftpbox.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com ) Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com Message-ID: <35F04551.1EC0B7CA css.mot.com> Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 14:53:53 -0500 From: John Steck Organization: Motorola PCS - Rapid Tooling Applications X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: More gravity as a source of energy References: <1.5.4.16.19980904174714.2bbf553a aapi.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"2-p812.0.Jb.GK4yr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22125 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John Collins wrote: > Thanks for the lecture John, but it wasn't necessary, I assure you :-). No insult intended. Experience on this list varies greatly. Your proposal is very illogical to me and I am trying to understand. To do that, you have to start with the givens, and make sure everyone agrees they are givens. 8^) > Let me put my position more clearly. You are employing the term potential > energy in your calculations, I am saying that we can disregard PE. You see > Bessler's later wheels required a slight push to get them moving. Once the > first weight had dropped the machine began to accelerate up to a certain > speed (26 RPM). Gravity is, as you know, a conservative force. A > conservative exhibits PE, but not Kinetic energy. PE is motionless, KE is > force in action/motion. Since Bessler's wheel required to be in motion > before its mechanism began to work, it was manifesting kinetic energy and it > was that energy that Bessler was tapping, not potential energy. ...but, you have to have the PE before you get the KE. KE is the conversion of PE. I ask again, how does this device reset the available PE to continuously do more work? The initial push may overcome static friction, but you still need to get the ball back to the top of the hill if you want it to roll down again. Unless you feel like discussing the actual mechanism this thread is pointless. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John E. Steck Senior Mechanical Engineer Rapid Tooling Applications Motorola, Libertyville, IL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 14:35:00 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA21930; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 14:32:36 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 14:32:36 -0700 Message-ID: <35F05B98.BF4B5DCE verisoft.com.tr> Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1998 00:28:56 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex Subject: Re: Superconducting Tungsten Detector References: <35F03BFD.A31B590E bellsouth.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"uEKeG3.0.XM5.pn5yr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22126 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Terry Blanton wrote: > > From: > http://www-leland.stanford.edu/dept/news/release/980902tesdetector.html > > New Optical Detector Could Revolutionize Astronomy > Note that it require 0.08 Kelvin to operate. A little expensive environment? :) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 14:42:45 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA25018; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 14:40:46 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 14:40:46 -0700 Message-ID: <35F05EF8.2961DA52 bellsouth.net> Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 17:43:20 -0400 From: Terry Blanton Reply-To: commengr bellsouth.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Savonius windmill analogy References: <199809041524_MC2-5871-AD23 compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"r3EOH1.0.l66.Tv5yr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22127 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed wrote: > "Gravity increases with mass but decreases with distance; the > further apart two objects are, the less the force of attraction between them. > That is why astronauts experience weightlessness once they are a certain > distance from earth." Yikes! True when you fly to the moon, but he should have > mentioned free fall. This interesting statement caused me to think (a painful prospect for a geek engineer ). It's not true flying to the moon. Astronauts do not experience weightlessness due to their distance from the earth. They have never been far enough away to experience true zero gravity (it never totally diminishes). On their way to the moon they think they are weightless because their reference (their spacecraft) is decelerating at the same rate as they are (or accelerating if they have passed the point of equal gravities). But it is still the effect of gravity which is causing their deceleration. You can experience apparent zero gravity in the Vomit Comet or if you are an unfortunate victim of an elevator accident. Of course, orbital freefall is apparent zero gravity, too. Then there are those places between orbiting bodies where their gravitational tug is equal. But none of these places are really zero gravity. Tinsley and I used to debate about whether gravity was necessary for space to exist. Suppose space density decreases when gravitational fields reach a certain lower limit. Then things might not actually be as far away as they seem . . . just space is less dense where the gravity diminishes. Maybe this belongs on vortexb-l. Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 15:13:58 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA04728; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 15:10:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 15:10:47 -0700 Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 15:11:50 -0700 Message-Id: <199809042211.PAA03659 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: Final: Re: More gravity as . . . Resent-Message-ID: <"zc7aA2.0.l91.cL6yr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22129 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >To: Vortex > >Ross Tessien writes: > > The fact that you [Collins] are not bringing designs forward to analyze > means that you are behaving in exactly the identical manner as did your > predicessors. . . . > >That isn't fair to Collins. He has not described the machine here, but he >wrote a book which does include a short description of the machine and some >diagrams. Well, if he would have just described what the book described (ie, already public domain info), then at least we would have something to chew on. So I accept your point, but let my comment stand. He should describe in this forum, the one in which he is discussing some new technology, what he can, publicly. See below: >The device is S shaped in cross section, similar to a Savonius windmill. This >is a windmill with a vertical axle. Seen from the top, the vane surfaces are >"S" shaped and the mill always turns in one direction (clockwise or >counterclockwise) no matter which direction the wind comes from. These are >cheap to make and they were popular in the 1960s and '70s. In a thought >provoking statement, Collins says, "No one, to my knowledge, has ever >suggested that a Savonius windmill will not work because one side of it could >not move *against* the wind." My response is that no one thinks gravity >resembles a compressible moving fluid, like air, and the physics of a device >pushed by moving air are quite different from those of a device pulled by >gravity. As far as I know, there is nothing like a Bernoulli effect for >gravity. Here, finally, is the very first mention of anything to do with design, or geometry, I have seen on the vortex list forum. Why on earth hasn't this been stated, or re-stated if it was mentioned once when Steck and I pushed for descriptions. Collins should have mentioned this. At least with the mention that you have an S shape to the thing we could now postulate about the nature of gravitation that could potentially lead to a Bernoulli like effect. I am not one of them, but many people think gravity is due to a flow of aether into objects like the earth. So we could definitely discuss ou potential from that premise. Myself, I don't think that aether flows into the earth, but, I do think that noise, ie chaotic wave energy, in the aether is incident upon the earth all the time. Hal Puthoff uses this model too with ZPE. So there is a lot of reason to think that wave energy, and not bulk flow, might be utilized. And geometry may well have something to do with such a device. To discuss it further, you would have to go into the construction techniques for the materials, and their geometries. If, in the atomic lattice you were to wind up with atomically aligned grains of atoms that had a continuous curature, or a changing curvature, then perhaps something might work. That would be worth consideration. If you do it with an HTSC crystal, the odds, IMO, go up dramatically. ie, I consider it impossible to go to a hardware store and buy materials that would work. Only HTSC materials or other super conductor materials stand a chance, IMO. And even then, you must curve the atomic lattice apreciably. ergo, I have always assumed that vapor deposition will be needed in order to deposit atomically organized lattices. > > > It sounds to me, like this guy way back when, figured out that by > reducing the friction in the journals, the thing would spin longer and > longer and longer, up to the point that he, and others, believed that he > had really accomplished something dramatic . . . > >That cannot be. The wheel was spun in air, not a vacuum. Even if the friction >of the bearings was reduced to nearly zero with a modern magnetic bearing, >the wheel would soon stop turning because of air resistance. It was made of >wood with protrusions, it would have stirred the air considerably. I never said it would go forever, or even weeks as stated in the book I guess. What I do say is that you could make something spin far longer than anyone else had ever seen with their eyes. If I took a rotor I could machine today back to that time frame, I could cause it to spin for quite a long time. And, if I had some small weights providing a continuous, small amount of torque to over come the drag, then it is possible that those small weights could keep the thing moving for weeks just as today we can pull some wieghts up in a grand father clock and keep the pendulum swinging for weeks, in air. It is the same thing. If you are not lifting large masses, then all you have to deal with is friction. And if you allow time for the wheel to spin up via using up some of the energy stored in the weights to slowly ramp up a large flywheel to some operating rpm, then that is identical to how a press brake works today. The momentum of a large flywheel forces the cutting blades right down through the steel plate to shear it, or bend it. Then, the weights slowly spin the thing back up to operating rpm. This way, the energy used up by the falling weights is disguised because it takes time to get the rpm up, and then you don't need much energy from the weights any more. I still don't find anything compelling in even the Savonius design for this thing, but at least there is some interesting geometry in it. If you made an S out of HTSC material, then I would be much more interested in what that would do. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 15:15:49 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA03528; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 15:08:44 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 15:08:44 -0700 Message-ID: <35F06407.5026262 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1998 01:04:55 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex Subject: Re: Savonius windmill analogy References: <199809041524_MC2-5871-AD23 compuserve.com> <35F05EF8.2961DA52@bellsouth.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"KF2ZC1.0.os.hJ6yr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22128 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Terry Blanton wrote: > [snip] > > Tinsley and I used to debate about whether gravity was necessary for space to > exist. Suppose space density decreases when gravitational fields reach a certain > lower limit. Then things might not actually be as far away as they seem . . . > just space is less dense where the gravity diminishes. > > Maybe this belongs on vortexb-l. > > Terry Not really in topic but recently I read the paper below, based to experimental results, gravitational potentials can be detected, to contrary Einstein's Equivalence principle. Things are going more interesting when the equivalence principle is ruled out. General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology, abstract gr-qc/9808065 From: "Dharam V. Ahluwalia" Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 17:22:19 GMT (9kb) On an incompleteness in the general-relativistic description of gravitation Authors: D. V. Ahluwalia (EFUAZ, Zacatecas) The recently introduced mechanism of flavor-oscillation clocks has been used to emphasize observability of constant gravitational potentials and thereby to question completeness of the theory of general relativity. An inequality has been derived to e xperimentally test the thesis presented. An other anomaly is reported at paper: gr-qc/9808081 Indication, from Pioneer 10/11, Galileo, and Ulysses Data, of an Apparent Anomalous, Weak, Long-Range Accelerattion Authors: John D. Anderson, Philip A. Laing, Eunice L. Lau, Anthony S. Liu, Michael Martin Nieto, Slava G. Turyshev Radio metric data from the Pioneer 10/11, Galileo, and Ulysses spacecraft indicate an apparent anomalous, constant, acceleration acting on the spacecraft with a magnitude $\sim 8.5\times 10^{-8}$ cm/s$^2$, directed towards the Sun. Two dependent codes and physical strategies have been used to analyze the data. A number of potential causes have been ruled out. We discuss future kinematic tests and possible origins of the signal. Both papers are available at xxx.lanl.gov Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 15:55:00 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA20815; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 15:53:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 15:53:42 -0700 Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 15:54:49 -0700 Message-Id: <199809042254.PAA09033 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: Gravity, Re: Savonius windmill analogy Resent-Message-ID: <"LOx6r3.0.755.sz6yr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22130 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Incidentally, I have not got the foggiest idea what gravity is. After my >daughter took physics and chemistry I asked her: What do you think gravity is? >She answered without a moment's hesitation "a meter per second per second." >Philistine that I, I like that answer. I like the one in "Physics Made Simple" >too: "Notice that Newton's law allows us to calculate the force of gravity but >does not tell us what gravitation is or why it exists. These are questions of >philosophy, not physics." Jed, not that it is important here but 9.8 m/s^2 ;-) Now, gravity is really simple to understand, and understanding it is not philosophy, it is physics, IMO. I have mentioned the example of two ships on the ocean. park them side by side, and they each filter out some of the wave energy from striking the other. That filtering leads to a thrust away from the waves origin, which is the deep ocean. So, both ships are filtering and being pushed away from the open ocean, and thus toward each other. this is how gravity works, this is how the Casimir cavity works. Neither is an attraction force. The question is, could you potentiall build something out of ordinary matter that could produce a differential sheilding effect, and I say "in principle, yes", but in practice, not really, at least not the devices that started this thread. One test of this notion I conceived of three years ago. It consists of taking a Cavendish balance up to the peak of the Sierra (or other), mountain range. The Sierras run NS, and so they act like a NS sheild against noisy ZPE arriving from space and pushing us down. Therefore, if I use the version of that balance where the mass displaces slightly due to the presence of a second mass, then I can determine how much displacement exists when the apparatus is oriented such that the masses are pushed toward one another by wave energy arriving from the EW direction as compared to the balance deflection when it is oriented along the NS direction. If the mountains are shielding the apparatus, then the action imparted along the NS line of the mountain range should be less than the action imparted to the masses by ZPE arriving from the EW directions. Put another way, my view factor to outer space is less obstructed by the mountain range along the EW line than it is along the NS line. If I could measure a change in the number of laser interferometer fringes along those orientations, then that would be proof. My fear, though, was that the spacetime nodes would be crushed a different amount along those lines as well, and so despite a change in deflection, there might also be a change in the distances, ie, the numbers of space nodes along the aparatus line. If so, then I would be fooled into thinking nothing happened because both the laser beam and the mass of the weights and the spacetime nodes would all have been changed in like amounts. thus, no differential. I am still intrigued and if I had the equipment I would test it out. But it got tricky as to how to attach a reflection mirror to the rotating arm of the cavendish balance without the rotation messing things up. Maybe that would just act to amplify any fringing, but that depends on the design. But notice that I am using an entire mountain range here, and am still not confident it is enough to induce a tiny effect. This is why I have zero confidence that the device being discussed could have even a remote chance of having really worked. I think they were fooled by what they saw, and the myth lives on. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 16:03:49 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA00829; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 16:02:37 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 16:02:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 15:54:51 -0700 Message-Id: <199809042254.PAA09036 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: PBS Petition if you choose Resent-Message-ID: <"7U1Jg3.0.tC.B67yr" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22131 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I imagine petitions are not normally part of vortex, but, this one deals with PBS, and I for one think that the tiny amount of money spent is valuable. I enjoy NOVA, and many of the other nature and science programs. ERgo, send this on to others if you choose, or send it in otherwise. I suppose this is going to be some interesting learning in geometric marketing research unless they have a system to subtract out duplicate names at the end! anyway, sign it if you want and then send it on to others around the US. Ross Tessien This is for anyone who thinks NPR/PBS is a worthwhile expenditure of $1.12/year of their taxes. . . . A petition follows. If you sign, please forward it on to others. If not,please don't kill it-send it to this e-mail address: wein2688 blue.univnorthco.edu PBS, NPR (National Public Radio), and the arts are facing major cutbacks in funding. In spite of the efforts of each station to reduce spending costs and streamline their services, some government officials believe that the funding currently going to these programs is too large a portion of funding for something which is seen as "unworthwhile." Currently, taxes from the general public for PBS equal $1.12 per person per year, and the National Endowment for the Arts equals $.64 a year in total. A January 1995 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll indicated that 76% of Americans wish to keep funding for PBS, third only to national defense and law enforcement as the most valuable programs for federal funding. Each year, the Senate and House Appropriations committees each have 13 subcommittees with jurisdiction over many programs and agencies. Each subcommittee passes its own appropriation bill. The goal each year is to have each bill signed by the beginning of the fiscal year, which is October 01. The only way that our representatives can be aware of the base of support for PBS and funding for these types of programs is by making our voices heard. Please add your name to this list and forward it to friends if you believe in what we stand for. This list will be forwarded to the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, and Representative Newt Gingrich, who is the instigator of the action to cut funding to these worthwhile programs. If you happen to be the 350th, 400th, 450th, etc. signer of this petition, please forward a copy to: wein2688 blue.univnorthco.edu. If that address is inoperative, please send it to: kubi7975 blue.univnorthco.edu. This way we can keep track of the lists and organize them. Forward this to everyone you know, and help us to keep these programs alive. Thank you. Mark Birnbaum 1) Pete Mumma, Baltimore MD 2) Erik Roskes, Baltimore, MD 3) William K. Levey, Reisterstown, MD 4) Raymond S. Hoffman, M.D., Baltimore, MD 5) John G. Coe. Cheyenne, WY 6) John C. Fogarty, Sacramento, CA 7) Joseph C. Fogarty, Omaha, NE 8) Shaula R. Bellour, New York, NY 9) Vivien Hoexter, New York, NY 10) Katherine L. Mihok, New York, NY 11) Bryan A. Mihok, Burlington, VT 12) Harry Frank, Huntington, VT 13) Marie Eddy, Hinesburg, VT 14) Angela Batista, Burlington, VT 15) Cathy Paris, Jericho, VT 16) Russell A. Charif, Newfield, NY 17) Katherine J. Dunsmore, Ithaca, NY 18) Donald J. Dunsmore, Frederick, MD 19) Phoebe Z. Black, Rockville, MD 20) John P. Buckley, Rockville, MD 21) Peter B. Buckley, Astoria, NY 22) Christopher Caswell, New York, NY 23) W. John Bainbridge, New York, NY 24) Rev. Nancy E. Brink, Omaha, NE 25) Dr. Harriet C. McCleary, Minneapolis, MN 26) Vicki F. Barosh, Rosharon, TX 27) Dennis Keim, Houston, TX 28) Rev. Sylvia I. Gatzke, Houston, TX 29) Karen Bull, Branson, MO 30) Tenna Matthews, Howe, TX 3l) Charles Harrill, Denton, TX 32) Christina J. Moore, Austin, TX 33) Connie Sawyer, Decatur, GA 34) Alison Hable, Austin, TX 35) Mateo Scoggins, Austin, Texas 36) David Ritchie, Worcester, MA 37) Lisa Comparini, Worcester, MA 38) Tom Ortega, Phoenix, AZ 39) Stacia Ortega, Phoenix, AZ 40) Ruben J.. Mu-oz, Phoenix, AZ 41) Mark Osmers, Phoenix, AZ 42) Ed Coyoli, Tempe, AZ 43) Atoussa Nourdjahan, Los Angeles, CA 44) Anthony Randazzo, Zagreb, Croatia 45) Aideen Mannion, Warsaw, Poland 46) Eve Berton, Warsaw, Poland 47) Marilyn Zelin, Budapest, Hungary 48) Jean Rogers, Fairfax, Virginia 49) Sandy Burdsall, Black Earth, WI 50) Hal Burdsall 51) Glen R. Stanosz, Middleton, WI 52) Robert L. Jeanne, Madison, WI 53) Daniel B. Wile, Oakland, CA 54) Lee Kassan, Montclair, NJ 55) Shellie Enteen, Delray Beach, FL 56) Cyd Wikert, Lakeland, FL 57) Teresa Descilo, Miami, Fl. 58) Frank A. Gerbode, M.D., Palo Alto, CA 59) JillMacKay, Pittsburgh, PA. 60) Terri Taylor, Pittsburgh, PA 61) Marilyn W. McAuliffe, N. Miami Bch., FL 62) Robert Gregory, San Francisco, CA 63) Howard Eisenstark, Sonoma, CA 64) Paul Miller, Piedmont, CA 65) Joey Chandler, San Francisco, CA 75) Monica Scudieri, Oakland, CA 76) Francoise Hansen, Lafayette, CA 77) Ross Tessien, Grass Valley, CA Cut and paste this entire page into your own new e-mail, sign the petition, then send it on to others. Thanks /// / @\ ( ) ---o000----( )----000o------------------------------------------------- | | | Paul Miller, Ph.D. | | | | 5435 College Ave, Suite 202, Rm 7 | | Oakland, CA 94618 | | _________________ | | email: p_miller pacbell.net | | voice and fax: (510) 653-9730 | | 0ooo | ----ooo0-----------(--)------------------------------------------------ ( ) ) / From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 16:19:09 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA30377; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 16:18:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 16:18:23 -0700 Comments: ( Received on ftpbox.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com ) Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com Message-ID: <35F07582.799FCF06 css.mot.com> Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 18:19:30 -0500 From: John Steck Organization: Motorola PCS - Rapid Tooling Applications X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Final: Re: More gravity as . . . References: <199809042211.PAA03659 Au.oro.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"p0vNl1.0.TQ7._K7yr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22132 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Ross Tessien wrote: > And, if I had some small weights providing a continuous, small > amount of torque to over come the drag, then it is possible that those small > weights could keep the thing moving for weeks just as today we can pull some > wieghts up in a grand father clock and keep the pendulum swinging for weeks, > in air. It is the same thing. > > If you are not lifting large masses, then all you have to deal with is > friction. And if you allow time for the wheel to spin up via using up some > of the energy stored in the weights to slowly ramp up a large flywheel to > some operating rpm, then that is identical to how a press brake works today. > The momentum of a large flywheel forces the cutting blades right down > through the steel plate to shear it, or bend it. Funny. Both examples given are the same I thought of. The fact that Bessler was a clockmaker only biases my suspicions that much more. I am not trying to rain on your parade JC. As I mentioned before, I would happy to be wrong on this. Specifics would clear up so much... 8^) -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John E. Steck Senior Mechanical Engineer Rapid Tooling Applications Motorola, Libertyville, IL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 17:53:57 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA17551; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 17:44:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 17:44:04 -0700 Message-ID: <35F09F24.767F sunherald.infi.net> Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 19:17:08 -0700 From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Reply-To: stk sunherald.infi.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Scope cameras? WAS: Re: Oscilloscopes References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"3mY_G2.0.7I4.Jb8yr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22133 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jim Ostrowski wrote: > Go ahead ask me what lissajous is. I know what Lissajous is. I've been talking to a friend who works with o-scopes daily. Kyle R. Mcallister From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 17:56:29 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA18139; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 17:45:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 17:45:22 -0700 Message-Id: <199809050040.UAA00827 mercury.mv.net> Subject: Re: Patriot missile dispute Date: Fri, 4 Sep 98 20:44:44 -0000 x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: "E.F. Mallove" To: "VORTEX" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Resent-Message-ID: <"1VdZb.0.7R4.Xc8yr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22134 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed wrote: >I am 99.999% sure the Bessler device does not work, because there are no >working models and because a tremendous body of established laws and >observations mitigates against it. This is not true of cold fusion, by the >way. There are no theories that show it cannot happen, despite what opponents >say. Only a few hundred people have closely investigated the behavior or >hyperloaded metal hydrides, and most of them found excess heat and nuclear >effects. Thousand of people have tried to make weight driven perpetual motion >machines but they all failed . . . except *maybe* Bessler. No other PPM has a >credible reports from a scientist of Leibniz's caliber. This report should >give anyone pause, and reserve that last 0.001% uncertainty. BUT...there are many possibly related contemporary claims, for example, the uni-directional thrusters, One even now being taken very seriously at some significant levels st Boeing (the Robert Cook Device -- the Cook Inertial Propulsion device -CIP), and some good people have checked it out and have been impressed. If any of these machines have merit, then it certainly seems that some very, very fundamental laws need to be reconsidered. Only experimental testing and time will tell. These devices, if real, might embody a principle that *might* allow some validity to Bessler's Wheel, which I myself find almost impossible to believe. Yet I am very impressed with and happy about John Collins' book. (we have copies for sale from our office, by the way -- Call Christy to order one or e-mail to staff infinite-energy.com). Jed's use of thie argument surprised me: "and because a tremendous body of established laws and observations mitigates against it." A tremendous body of evidence mitigates against the Griggs device -- yet it works, as far as I am concerned. As far as "established laws" go since I have very little faith the something as "established" as Special Relativity is correct, how much faith should anyone have in these "rock solid" established laws? Not much, I suggest. Best, Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 17:58:11 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA25214; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 17:57:14 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 17:57:14 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 17:02:24 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Patriot missile dispute Resent-Message-ID: <"7Xba22.0.s96.fn8yr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22135 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 12:44 PM 9/4/98, E.F. Mallove wrote: [snip] >BUT...there are many possibly related contemporary claims, for example, >the uni-directional thrusters, One even now being taken very seriously at >some significant levels st Boeing (the Robert Cook Device -- the Cook >Inertial Propulsion device -CIP), and some good people have checked it >out and have been impressed. [snip] >Best, Gene Mallove Is there any info. available on the Robert Cook Device? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 19:14:30 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA17941; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 19:10:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 19:10:24 -0700 Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 22:07:52 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Patriot missile dispute Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809042210_MC2-5880-86F compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"O9R-03.0.DO4.Fs9yr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22136 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Gene writes: Jed's use of this argument surprised me: "and because a tremendous body of established laws and observations mitigates against it." A tremendous body of evidence mitigates against the Griggs device -- yet it works, as far as I am concerned. Well, I am a staid conventionalist. I wouldn't dream of tossing out a law until replicated observations pile up against it. Inventors have been to trying to make PPM with falling weights for centuries. Manufacturers made clocks and other weight driven equipment for centuries. The precise value for G and the energy you can derive from a falling weight has been the subject of intense research. The Griggs machine and other cavitation phenomena have not been investigated, except to prevent cavitation. I do not think anyone looked at the energy balance for cavitation, because there has been no reason to look. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 19:50:50 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA26430; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 19:47:49 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 19:47:49 -0700 Message-ID: <35F0C207.4660 sunherald.infi.net> Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 21:45:59 -0700 From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Reply-To: stk sunherald.infi.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: TEST-ignore Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"8FNJQ1.0.rS6.KPAyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22137 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 Fri Sep 4 21:21:07 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA17206; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 21:20:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 21:20:20 -0700 Message-ID: <35F0AF26.509E earthlink.net> Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 22:25:26 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, storms2@ix.netcom.com Subject: Murray: Rothwell: Thin wall CF cell problems 9.4.98 References: <199809041203_MC2-5871-3B5F compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"AsM6Z3.0.fC4.3mByr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22138 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Sept. 4, 1998 Thanks, Jed Rothwell, for a lucid, cogent discussion of major problems with the thin wall CF cell. Perhaps it would be practical to have a 1 cm2, or even smaller, thin wall, with a digital camera doing a close up. We'd have to just try it and see if any anomalous spots appear, clearly different from the clutter of various ordinary effects. We could add a pulsing magnetic field to see if it would move the active spots around-- that would also show if the spots were regions of current flow. I guess it shouldn't be hard to make a leak proof seal for a small wall. My little lily theory suggests that the Ohmori micro volcano spots may be purely from H2 + O2 reaction. Has anyone else done an analysis on the energy needed to produce ~1 mg of mostly Au precipitates? Ed Storms told me someone had estimated that only nuclear reactions could do the trick. Rich Murray From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 21:25:15 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA19316; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 21:22:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 21:22:24 -0700 Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 21:25:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Ostrowski X-Sender: jimostr mailserv1 To: Vortex Subject: Superluminal Website (was- Re: For the sake..) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"saEDl3.0.kj4.0oByr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22139 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 3 Sep 1998, John Schnurer wrote: > > Dear Vo., > > Theoretically, for the sake of discussion... NOT flaming, but > for the design of a potential experiment...: > > a] one takes a transmission line, leaky at one end.... so > desigend as to allow PHASE propagation at super lumal, ie., 120% C. I was unaware that there were specific designs utilizing "leaky at one end" transmission lines to transmit anything superluminally. I'm not denying that what you suggest might be possible. But since I am not familiar with the concept here at the inception of your proposal I cannot evaluate the remainder (appearing below). One question re: the term you use "Phase Propagation" - does that imply a transfer of _information_ (even if it's only a single " bit ") from point A to point B ? This is a serious inquiry John , and it was not my intention to argue with you in support of any such proposition that digital scopes are better than analog ones . There are some jobs that one or the other will be better suited to and I was just trying to show where one or the other might be preferable according to the cost and desired function, that's all. Back to your proposal , below I am in the process of putting together a website dedicated to amateur to semi-professional superluminal signalling experiments . The site will exhibit pictorial examples including animated gifs of Sansbury's fast shutter exp and perhaps my own attempts. If I understood your idea better I could illustrate it as well. Maybe even perform the exp w/ my facilities if I can find the parabolic reflectors you mention. The object of this website would be to get the attention of the higher level university lab directors to look into repeating the experiment in order to obtain the phenomena alleged from the semi-pro result - hopefully represented by some kind of proof that at least a bit of information traverses a given distance faster than c by means of SCOPE PICTURES whether via scope camera or digital capture. Illustrating the experiment and animating it if necessary is an important means of getting these higher up types to understand what we are doing. Word descriptions alone will not do the job, in my opinion. Although I consider myself moderately bright I do not understand the proposal embodied in your message . Please explain what you mean by phase propagation and the design of a superluminal transmission line (leaky or otherwise ) in more detail. Once I get a grip on what you are talking about , we can discuss whether or not you want to have some space on the site for your ideas. There will be no charge for disk space this site to any contributors who I feel have a worthy experiment or proposal for an experiemt and you will get full credit for all ideas you care to publish in this way. As I said I will even draw the necessary gifs . Best wishes, Jim Ostrowski > b] then a CW 910 m cps signal is established and is directed > toward a set of two semi parabolic reflectors, so as to tend to return a > useful percentage of the signal to a location adjacent to the launch point > c] a last semi parabolic reflector is used to focus the signal to > a simple mono or dipole antenna... which is then amplified by a MMIC > [monolithic microwave IC] > d] the Tranmit and receive are ... robbed from a cell phone > e] a KISS [keep it simple, stupid] phase shifter made from the T-R > [transmit recieve] switch... ..from he same phone ... is used to slightly > load the CW [continuous wave] transmission so as to be able to induce a > 20 degree [or so] phase shift. > f] the TR switch is toggled at, say, 49 meg [robbed from a stupid > cordless phone....] and the TOGGLE signal is fed to the trigger of a 2 > channel scope .... > g] the return reflectors cause a path appropriate to sweep... > depending on scope .... and the A nd B channel are used to calculate lag > of signal.... > h] measurement of path length will yield time light takes to get > there and back > i] if needed a divider or heterodune] is used [robbed from the phone > to more easily see the phaes distortion event... > > > Anyone got an easirer idea.... ANALOG!!!! > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 21:35:44 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA22280; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 21:34:34 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 21:34:34 -0700 Message-ID: <35F0B27A.6337 earthlink.net> Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 22:39:38 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Y2K: Jager: optimism on Sep, 1998 9.4.98 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"IaX6_3.0.2S5.QzByr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22140 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Received: from mercury.tenagra.com ([206.222.163.151]) by condor.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA10342; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 09:38:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (daemon localhost) by mercury.tenagra.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA08470; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 06:33:30 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mercury.tenagra.com (bulk_mailer v1.5); Fri, 4 Sep 1998 06:33:21 -0500 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mercury.tenagra.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA05503; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 06:20:22 -0500 (CDT) Received: from smtp13.bellglobal.com (smtp13.bellglobal.com [204.101.251.52]) by mercury.tenagra.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA05486 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 06:20:18 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [206.172.239.73] (ppp841.on.bellglobal.com [206.172.239.73]) by smtp13.bellglobal.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA21745 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 07:20:08 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: b1enka74 pop1.sympatico.ca (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 07:27:04 +0100 To: year2000-discuss year2000.com From: "Y2K Maillist (Via: Amy)" Subject: Moving to zero Sep, 1998 Sender: owner-year2000-discuss year2000.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: year2000-discuss year2000.com Errors-To: owner-year2000-discuss year2000.com Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 14:31:27 -0400 (EDT) From: pdejager year2000.com (Peter de Jager) Subject: Moving to zero Sep, 1998 To: year2000-discuss year2000.com Moving to Zero - September 1998 Yikes... September! 1998! How time flies when you're having fun... Greetings Folks, 16 months and counting. Well, I've been at it for more than 94 months already... so I guess I can last for a handful more. Besides, what choice do I/we have? Over the past 3-6 months I've noticed a trend. If you've read my article on www.year2000.com - 'In Defiance of Defeatism' then you know the trend I'm referring to. We, I should be a bit more specific here, the press and droves of the digitally defeated, went from denial to despair in one single sudden step. What's also depressing to me, is that for the most part, the press has painted everyone who has ever tried to warn anyone about this problem as a 'doomsayer'. They make no distinction between someone who stated and still states, 'the systems are broken, there are nasty consequences to broken systems, so lets fix them' and those who are screaming 'the systems are broken, the nasty consequences are unavoidable! Run away! Run away!'... Media, take note, there's a difference, a big difference. To any reporter who was skeptical of any consultant who warned of this problem and then in their infinite wisdom and protected by the 4th estate's unaccountability, published or aired your personal skepticism, you blew it big time. Admit it please?... the problem turns out to be real. If you were skeptical of a consultant (a.k.a. 'Doomsayer') all you ever had to do was call up several dozen Year 2000 managers working to fix this problem and remove your skepticism by a process called 'investigative journalism.' To any reporter who ever asked a consultant to describe both the worst case scenario and then describe what they thought would really happen on Jan 1st 2000 and then decided that worst case scenarios made a 'better' story... you're as guilty as any manager who left it too late to fix the problem. And most importantly... to any reporter who took the time to cover this story properly... my sincere, deepest thanks, and the thanks of many others who tried desperately to wake up the world to a problem we could have solved if we'd given ourselves enough time. For the record, untruncated by the expediency of the soundbite, unsimplified for general distribution, undiluted by a pressing deadline, here is, for what it's worth, my view of our current situation. We're in for the wildest ride of our lives. Consider the following, In Asia we have a financial crisis which has already had a negative impact on economies worldwide. China still pegs it's currency against the dollar, like a swimmer holding onto a pier against an undercurrent. If? When? they unpeg their currency the flu turns into a raging economic chill. In Japan banks are unstable, they tremble every time the wind blows cherry blossoms across Mt. Fuji. In Europe they're embarking on a great experiment. The move to a common currency. An event without precedent. Europe waits with bated breath to see how it all turns out. In Russia we have had a meltdown which has rocked the DOW Bulls off their collective 'irrational exuberance'. That the entire economy of Russia is literally nothing when compared to the recent losses on the Japanese stock market is besides the point. The economic fall of Russia is another blow to investor confidence. On top of this, we have the approach of the Year 2000. Not the computer problem... just the mystical quasi religious fervor concerning the coming third Millennium. This has finally, (was there ever any doubt it would?) sloshed over into Y2K discussions. I now daily get e-mail asking me if I don't think Y2K is God's retribution for our sins. (For the record, I think it very unfair to blame God for our conscious coding compromises.) Mix this all together, stir sternly with passion, spice with hidden agendas and you have the beginnings of a delightful witch's brew. You certainly have the makings of a recession by any definition you choose. And then to crown the brew with that extra special touch, we have Y2K. Self inflicted problems in hardware and software and ubiquitous embedded systems. But, fear not! There are otherwise intelligent people who are claiming this will be a one day event. That some systems will fail, then we'll beep the programmer, who'll fix it in an hour or so and all will be well with the world. They chose to ignore that thousands of years of effort, billions of dollars, have already been spent correcting the dumbest error we've ever created for ourselves. It's already much, much more than a one day event. It's already had a negative effect on the economy and has slowed technological progress in hundreds of companies. To give you a yardstick against which to measure the importance and size of Y2K... It's already even bigger than the release of Windows 95... it hasn't had the same level of press coverage of course... but then, the media, for the most part, is no longer concerned with communicating news which is important... just what's cool, what's entertaining, political scandals and voicing opinions based upon ignorance and preconceived notions. And before I get deluged by legions of outraged media, these very critical statements are directed at those who deserve them. It is not directed to any media person who was merely 'skeptical'... 'Skepticism' is just another way of saying 'prove it to me'... the criticism is directed at those who let their justifiable skepticism get in the way of either straight reporting or of their natural ability to do investigative journalism. For years I have underestimated the power of denial and resistance demonstrated, not only by the media, but more importantly by management, government and even the computer industry itself. I have erred repeatedly on the side of optimism that we could not, would not be, so deaf, dumb, and blind as to ignore the fact that the code was broken. That if it was allowed to remain broken, that when we started putting '00' into it, that the consequences would be unacceptable. Despite these errors in judgment in the past about our ability to heed the clanging of an alarm bell. I am now of the opinion that despite our late start, we will get through this. Not with ease. Not without tremendous pain, but we will get through this, it's not all going to go down the toilet. Some would say, are saying, though seldom eloquently, that I've become a Pollyanna... that I'm in denial of the facts even as I write this. When they've been at this as long as I have... then perhaps I'll pay attention to them, but only if the quality of their argument rises above primordial screaming. So why do I feel confident in stating that we'll get through this? Because, over the past 3 to 6 months, panic has set in... AND luckily, so has the required sense of urgency. That sense of urgency is the driving force behind some very tough decisions. More and more companies are forcing their attention to that which matters, to the exclusion of the non-critical. In doing so, they are greatly reducing their workload, albeit at a tremendous future cost in the levels of service they will be able to offer their clients. Two examples will suffice to set the tone. Sweden has said very clearly they will shut down nuclear power plants, if there is any doubt that they've taken care of every possible contingency, regardless of the cost. This is a serious decision. It's a tough insurance policy to invest in, but it's also the right move. Several airline companies have said the same thing regarding flights. They will not fly planes that evening if they have any doubts as to their safety. Again this is a difficult economic decision to make. But it means they now take the problem seriously and are treating it with the respect it deserves. Y2K is becoming, for the first time, the only priority in companies. Not 'the first priority' implying there are secondary and tertiary priorities, but the 'only' priority. That's a significant and much welcomed change. Governments, and in particular, the people running their Y2K projects are finally getting it. They are taking every possible action behind the scenes to do what must be done. Are there risks of failure? Of course there are, but focusing, even drawing attention to those risks when they are unavoidable is non-constructive. Any time a pilot is landing a plane there is a real risk of a crash landing. Personally, since I'm a frequent flyer, I want the pilot to keep those risks in mind. Especially if the passengers are aware that something is wrong AND that the pilot is now finally aware of it... But I don't see any point in the pilot getting on the speaker phone and describing to the passengers, who now have no control over the coming event, the many piecemeal and painful, ways in which they might die in the next 3 minutes. What I want the pilot to do is pay attention to the upcoming landing and perhaps offer me some reasonable precautions to take... seat buckles on, tray tables up, seats in upright position etc. (jumping off the plane is not what I would describe as a reasonable precaution) So the sense of urgency is accelerating and we are now doing what we can do at this late date. This does not mean that we'll get through this easily... but we will get through it. I will state again for the record that A) We left it too late - due to the skepticism displayed by the media management and government. B) We will not fix every system on time - we never have in the past, there's no reason we will this time C) We will not even fix all the mission critical systems in time - on time delivery has no relationship to the importance of a project D) We will see business failures directly related to Y2K failures - If business doesn't depend upon computers, why are companies using computers? E) Government systems will fail at a higher rate than any other industry sector. - no comment is necessary... is it? F) Small companies are in a better situation than large - They rely more on packaged software than customized software G) This is a defining moment for our reliance on technology - Projects will never again be implemented without remembering Y2K H) We will see, at the very least, a recession, - not just because of Y2K, but because it is happening at very, shall we say, uncertain times. I) It will be ugly and was/is totally unnecessary. - That's the sad and frustrating part to me, we consciously chose to be where we are. That's the bad news... here are some additional statements. a) Planes will not fall out of the sky (no matter how many times the media repeats this nonsense) b) The global telecommunications systems will not fail c) The oil industry will not grind to a halt d) The financial industry will be the most stable of all industries e) ATM's, Debit cards, credit cards and cheques will not fail f) The power grid will not collapse Why? How can I make these statements? I make them for two reasons. The first I've already mentioned. The sense of urgency and related activities is rapidly accelerating. But our best efforts and a growing sense of urgency alone will not bring us through this. Remember, (as if we could ever forget) we left it too late. So what's the second reason? It's not that we've overestimated the size of the problem. Nor is it that someone will come up with a silver bullet. Nor is it that, "because we cannot afford to fail!" we won't. Or that project management will all of a sudden get so good that projects won't be delivered as late as they have been in the past etc. It's none of these. It's not even that we will, when pushed to the wall perform super human feats, which will save some of our necks in the eleventh hour. It's something which many will totally reject outright as preposterous, outrageous and even sacrilegious. That's okay... they said similar things when I first started to raise Y2K as an issue... I'm getting used to it. The reason we'll get through this, even though we left it too late, and when mission critical applications are late, is that; Most of the technology in use today is unnecessary, unimportant and perhaps even detrimental to progress, if not also to the status quo. At one level, that statement is almost too true to be worthy of mention. I use Microsoft Word V. 6.0.1 for the Macintosh. I can safely say I use less than 1% of the capability of that product. I am hardly handicapped by not using the rest of the 'bloat.' I've written hundreds of articles and a book with that paltry 1% "But if it fails! You won't be able to write with it!" True enough, but then I'll either select another WP which works... or use a pen and paper to scratch out my thoughts. Either way, I don't -NEED- MS Word to write. The same is true for every other personal computer product at my disposal, none of them are critical to my business. Not even the total loss of E-mail would shut me down... although that, next to the phone, would be the most damaging loss. No, I haven't forgotten that client server technology is a reality. That significantly sized companies are 100% dependent upon their PC applications. If those applications failed forever, they would go out of business. But that's not how the world works. When systems fail, they leave solid clues as to where and why they failed. It will be a VERY rare situation where a system failure will take more than a month to fix IF you've already been working on making your system Y2K compliant for the last 2 years. That's part of the solution... we are focusing on mission critical systems and we are fixing that which we know will fail. What's left will contain some surprises, we won't fix everything, but what's left over will mostly be trivial matters. YES! There is an assumption here. That we won't overlook something huge. Something which would take a full year to fix. But I believe it's a reasonable assumption, especially if I've been sincere in my efforts to fix problems ahead of time. At the other end of the spectrum we have the global telecommunications network. Totally integrated, self interdependent, vulnerable to failures in hardware, software and embedded systems, exposed to more single points of failure than we'd like to admit, spanning the globe and reaching into space, crucial to business, banking and practically everything else we do to enjoy our current standard of living. This had better work. Nor is it a system which can operate properly, if at all, with significant portions of the system suffering from any type of problem, Y2K or otherwise. Which is exactly why the telecommunications industry is one of the leaders in preparing for Y2K. Again for the record, they started late, they're no better at delivering systems on time than anyone else, and have a healthy record of outages to motivate them to this time... get it right. and, they are now working on it, and are concentrating their efforts on the single most important aspect of their service... dial tone, to the exclusion sometimes of things like 'billing' and administrative functions. Will they get it done? When contemplating the future, sometimes you have to rely on your fellow man (and woman) to do properly what must be done. There are no guarantees, there are only best efforts. The good news is this... many companies have target dates for December this year. We will know soon enough if the hard work and increased urgency is paying off. I don't expect companies to say they are 'compliant' in December. I do expect to hear a vast majority of companies stating that the important services have been secured. That the key services upon which we depend will be available come the day. I also expect companies who have failed in their attempt to get done what they set out to do, to be sold to companies who have gained the upper hand. The failure of any company is not a catastrophe if the services they once provided are now provided by the competition. An increase in mergers will be a good sign. It's proof that hard decisions are being made. It's evidence that critical services will continue to be provided, albeit by other companies. Which brings us to the area between trivial PC applications and vital infrastructure. I'll offer a single example of 'too much technology' An inventory system today, consists of several hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lines of code. Fixing it all is a daunting task. But an inventory system, requires only four functions. Add stock, pull it, query for availability, and a allow corrections to both stock count and location. This is not acceptable today. It is only acceptable when the real system fails and you tell management it'll take three months to fix. Then they'll sit you down, and explain to you, in clear concise language, what's necessary to run the business. You'll deliver what they need in three days. That's why it won't all crash, because we don't always need fully functioned fancy systems, sometimes all we need are the bare bones of a system. It's my experience that most systems are bloated with things we want, not things we need. I'm always baffled by the huge industry in accounting software... just how many variations of double entry bookkeeping are really necessary? What is the bare necessity of an accounting system? What could you settle for in functionality if you had no choice but to settle for the absolute minimum? I'll make a guess and state that most applications offer 10 times more functionality than necessary... not only that, but I also believe that seldom is more than 10% of a product's functionality actually used to run the business. But what about embedded systems? Without doubt, this is the area of greatest risk. Nor are there any easy answers. There are billions of them. They're hidden from sight. They may or may not work on the rollover. They may or may not work on restart. They are the Achilles heel of Y2K. So what do we do? We identify what we can, fix what we find, and take out insurance on the rest. ...No, not something like a life insurance policy, nobody would be stupid enough to offer such a protection. No, the only alternative we've left ourselves is to turn off what we're not sure of. If you reply, "We can't afford to turn off that device/system..." then you've answered the questions 'What should I focus my attention on? What should I test? What should I fix? What should I replace?' I can hear the cries of outrage and anguish already... "turning things off is not a solution, that's not practical, that's ignoring the problem etc. Etc." Sorry folks, but what other choice do we have? Either you do the work beforehand and check out every aspect of a chemical plant/airport/mine to make sure it will work properly, or you shut it down and then slowly bring it back up to speed, watching like a hawk, every monitor, every warning light, every gauge. "Ah yes, but if you shut things down, then you'll be creating shortages etc. Etc." Duh... if you plan to shut things down, then you also plan to accommodate those shortages. You increase productivity through 1999 to allow for down time. "But you can't stockpile electricity!!!"... sheesh... if manufacturing CO's are shutting down for the reasons mentioned above, then the demand on electrical power is greatly reduced... these concerns can be managed if we choose to manage them. Nobody knows exactly how this will all shake out. I do know that 'worst case' scenarios are exactly that, the scenarios created by total inaction, total ignorance, total denial. Well, that's not our current situation. It once was. Today is September, 1998... We still have 16 months before us. And I, and many others, have years of effort behind us... Yours truly Peter de Jager pdejager year2000.com +------------------------------------------------+ / Peter de Jager - Speaker on Change & Year 2000 \ / pdejager year2000.com http://www.year2000.com \ / Tel: (905) 792-8706 Fax: (905) 792-9818 \ / +------ To embrace the Future .... Let go of the Past ----+ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 21:47:01 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA25968; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 21:44:26 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 21:44:26 -0700 Message-ID: <19980905044325.27732.rocketmail send1e.yahoomail.com> Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 21:43:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Schaffer Subject: Re: Thin wall CF cell To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"oFlhi3.0.gL6.f6Cyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22141 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Szpack (spelling) looked with an IR video camera at thin sheet cold fusion cathodes that he mounted in one side of an electrolytic cold fusion cell. The work was performed in a lab at U. California San Diego (UCSD). I saw the cell some years later. I don't remember how he sealed the thin cathode against electrolyte leakage, but I remember hearing that the obvious adhesives were unsatisfactory. He might have clamped the foil against an O-ring, but I don't remember. BTW, cameras that respond to IR emission from objects at about 300 K don't come cheaply. They cost multiple $10,000. Spatial resolution is worse than ordinary video, too. == Michael J. Schaffer _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 21:56:17 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA27998; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 21:50:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 21:50:20 -0700 Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 21:53:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Ostrowski X-Sender: jimostr mailserv1 To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Scope cameras? WAS: Re: Oscilloscopes In-Reply-To: <35F09F24.767F sunherald.infi.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"V9SBi3.0.Ir6.BCCyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22142 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 4 Sep 1998, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: > Jim Ostrowski wrote: > > > > Go ahead ask me what lissajous is. > > I know what Lissajous is. I've been talking to a friend who works with > o-scopes daily. Well excuse me all to hell... I was not trying to imply ignorance on your part or anything of the sort. JO From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 22:43:54 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA15688; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 22:42:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 22:42:47 -0700 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19980905053705.08bff896 aapi.co.uk> X-Sender: jcollins aapi.co.uk X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: John Collins Subject: Re: Savonius windmill analogy Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 06:46:02 +0100 Resent-Message-ID: <"kgSBH1.0.2r3.MzCyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22143 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 15:20 04/09/98 -0400, you wrote: >To: Vortex > >Jed - When I posted the previous message, I saw that Collins mentioned the Savonius windmill again. I wrote: > > . . . no one thinks gravity resembles a compressible moving fluid, like > air, and the physics of a device pushed by moving air are quite > different from those of a device pulled by gravity. As far as I know, > there is nothing like a Bernoulli effect for gravity. JC - I intended the Savonius windmill as an analogy to explain the following. Bessler's early wheels only turned in one direction. Due to criticism that they could be run by clockwork, he redesigned them so that they could be operated in either direction. I postulated the theory that to do that he must have incorporated a second mechanism inside the wheel, similar to the original but intended to drive the wheel in the opposite direction. Confirmation of this possibility lay in the fact that the later wheels were proportionately double the depth of the early ones, the speed achieved was only half that of the early ones, and they did not spontaneously begin to rotate. As an analogy I offered the Savonius wheel which reacts the same way. When two are on the same axle and are linked, but fitted to drive in opposite direction the structure needs a push to start, turns at half speed, and obviously take up double the space on the axle. I also said that the wind impacted on the whole device, moving and non-moving parts, just as gravity does, but I never said that wind acted in the same way as gravity. It was an analogy. And I still say that no one has ever suggested that a Savonius windmill can not work because at one stage in the revolution it has to turn against the wind. Jed -The main conclusion I draw from this book is that what I call "Inventor's Syndrome" -- the self-destructive, paranoid secrecy endemic in CF >and o-u research -- should be renamed "Bessler's Syndrome." The guy had the >worst case in recorded history! It is true there were no patent laws back >then, so he faced a tougher situation than inventors do today, but that is >really no excuse. JC - I agree Jed, the guy was paranoid. He swore that his head should be cut off if he was found to be cheating. He said that he should be locked up in jail if his machine was found to be a fake, and that he should be judged by the victims of this crime if it was found to be so. That was no idle threat - life was even cheaper then, than it is today. BUT he had good intentions (don't we all) he wanted top found an international school to teach people all the arts and crafts so that they could find employment easily. All this was to take place in an atmosphere of Christian teachings, prayer and meditation. To set this up he needed enough money in one go to buy a place employ the right teachers etc. OK he may have been a bit eccentric but no more so than a lot of people who have similar plans today. John Collins John Collins Author of 'Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?' - for more information and details on ordering visit my web site at http://www.free-energy.co.uk From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 4 23:44:53 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA26721; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 23:44:06 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 23:44:06 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980905014611.008f69a0 mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1998 01:46:11 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Mizuno 10:1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"GDqjd2.0.JX6.ssDyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22144 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: A gentleman named Kohn called me today to bring to my attention the papers presented by Mizuno at ICCF-7 (p. 247 and p. 253 in the proceedings). He urged me to try the experiments described in these papers, which are very similar to the incandescent W experiment except that a Pt cathode is used. His reason: Mizuno casually mentions in the abstract, "High heat output of the order of several hundred watts was observed from input power of tens of watts." Unfortunately, there appears to be essentially no discussion of these measurements in the two papers! They talk about radiation measurements, but they only mention that the cell's temperature was measured...no details of the calorimetry. With our apparatus still all set up and ready to go, we'll probably try Mizuno's experiment early next week. Comments, insights, and suggestions are most welcome. 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 Sat Sep 5 01:35:53 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA13982; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 01:35:08 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 01:35:08 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980905042740.00804de0 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1998 04:27:40 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Thin wall CF cell In-Reply-To: <19980905044325.27732.rocketmail send1e.yahoomail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"mtjc_.0.NQ3.xUFyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22145 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 09:43 PM 9/4/98 -0700, Michael J. Schaffer wrote: > >Szpack (spelling) looked with an IR video camera at thin sheet cold >fusion cathodes that he mounted in one side of an electrolytic cold >fusion cell. The work was performed in a lab at U. California San >Diego (UCSD). I saw the cell some years later. I don't remember how he >sealed the thin cathode against electrolyte leakage, but I remember >hearing that the obvious adhesives were unsatisfactory. He might have >clamped the foil against an O-ring, but I don't remember. > >BTW, cameras that respond to IR emission from objects at about 300 K >don't come cheaply. They cost multiple $10,000. Spatial resolution is >worse than ordinary video, too. Szpak picture at http://world.std.com/~mica/cfttime.html#cft61 on lower right Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 5 01:36:17 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA14340; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 01:35:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 01:35:23 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980905042755.00807ea0 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1998 04:27:55 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Mizuno 10:1 In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980905014611.008f69a0 mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"HvUuP1.0.zV3.BVFyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22146 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 01:46 AM 9/5/98 -0500, Scott Little wrote: >A gentleman named Kohn called me today to bring to my attention the papers >presented by Mizuno at ICCF-7 (p. 247 and p. 253 in the proceedings). He >urged me to try the experiments described in these papers, which are very >similar to the incandescent W experiment except that a Pt cathode is used. > ....> >With our apparatus still all set up and ready to go, we'll probably try >Mizuno's experiment early next week. Comments, insights, and suggestions >are most welcome. Dr. Kohn is a good man. Suggestions, again offered include: 1) fix your calorimeter as previously suggested. 2) eliminate the zero input power offsets as previously suggested. 3) add real time calibration with square waves to confirm accuracy as previously suggested; also add (and post) long term cooling curves (enabling noise measurements and other aspects of the system) 4) measure results as Pout/Pin (*), rather than simply try to rule in, or rule out, an effect. (*) and other parameters 5) concentrate on measuring the results rather than just trying to indirectly "prove" zero point energy. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 5 05:33:44 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA18218; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 05:29:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 05:29:07 -0700 Message-Id: <199809051224.IAA19755 mercury.mv.net> Subject: Re: Patriot missile dispute Date: Sat, 5 Sep 98 08:28:36 -0000 x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: "E.F. Mallove" To: "VORTEX" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Resent-Message-ID: <"mbARL1.0.YS4.JwIyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22147 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Is there any info. available on the Robert Cook Device? > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner YES. Patents sand a book. I will post these later when I return home from the Tesla meeting. Gene From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 5 08:25:28 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA27408; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 08:24:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 08:24:39 -0700 Message-ID: <35F1736D.5C9C sunherald.infi.net> Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1998 10:22:53 -0700 From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Reply-To: stk sunherald.infi.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Scope cameras? WAS: Re: Oscilloscopes References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"dbBrS3.0.5i6.tULyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22148 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jim Ostrowski wrote: > Well excuse me all to hell... > > I was not trying to imply ignorance on your part or anything of the sort. Jim- I was not flaming you; I simply stated that I know what Lissajous is. I know you weren't implying ignorance. Kyle R. Mcallister From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 5 09:12:09 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA10041; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 09:05:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 09:05:07 -0700 Message-ID: <35F17CE8.364A sunherald.infi.net> Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1998 11:03:20 -0700 From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Reply-To: stk sunherald.infi.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Superluminal Website (was- Re: For the sake..) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"pVfb01.0.oS2.o4Myr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22149 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jim Ostrowski wrote: > Back to your proposal , below I am in the process of putting together a > website dedicated to amateur to semi-professional superluminal signalling > experiments . The site will exhibit pictorial examples including animated > gifs of Sansbury's fast shutter exp and perhaps my own attempts. You're setting up a website devoted to superluminal signalling? Me too! WHen it gets set up better, I'll send you and vortex the address. > If I understood your idea better I could illustrate it as well. Maybe even > perform the exp w/ my facilities if I can find the parabolic reflectors > you mention. I have most of the materials already aquired for the experiment, I'm just waiting for my scope to arrive via UPS. When it does, I'll perform the experiment and post results. I also plan to (with John's permission) post detailed information on how to build the setup (including part types, etc.) so others can replicate. I've never been able to perform a serious experiment such as this before; I never had the necessary resources. I now have ~80% of what I need to do the experiment. I only that you have patience. Thanks, Kyle R. Mcallister From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 5 09:52:01 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA25402; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 09:51:12 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 09:51:12 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 08:56:25 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Patriot missile dispute Resent-Message-ID: <"dj4et1.0.pC6.0mMyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22150 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 12:28 AM 9/5/98, E.F. Mallove wrote: >>Is there any info. available on the Robert Cook Device? >> >>Regards, >> >>Horace Heffner > >YES. Patents sand a book. I will post these later when I return home from >the Tesla meeting. > >Gene Thanks! Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 5 11:59:47 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA22935; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 11:58:43 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 11:58:43 -0700 Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1998 12:00:36 -0700 From: Lynn Kurtz Subject: Re: *********ANNOUNCEMENT OF DEMONSTRATION!******** (fwd) In-reply-to: X-Sender: kurtz imap2.asu.edu (Unverified) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <199809051859.LAA07612 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: <"x06DE2.0.7c5.XdOyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22151 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 02:33 PM 8/29/98 -0700, you wrote: >>---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> ***************************** >> COME AND SEE IT FOR YOURSELF! >> ***************************** >> >> Date: ***** SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1998 ***** >> Time: 2:00PM (Pacific Time) >>Place: PHOENIX, ARIZONA >> >> Specific site location in Phoenix: >>As of the time of this announcement, the site >>details are being arranged;... > >OK, I'm in. I live in Scottsdale, right next to Phoenix. I will go see this >demo if the location is posted to this list (Vortex-l) in time and IF it >is FREE. I will tell you all what I see. I will also be watching the >Arizona Republic in the next couple of weeks to see if there is any local >publicity for this event. > >--Lynn Kurtz > Here we are T minus 7 and counting. No word about where this event will be. No publicity locally that I have seen. Maybe there will be no demonstration? --Lynn From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 5 12:33:52 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA32260; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 12:32:58 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 12:32:58 -0700 Message-ID: <002801bdd904$3934cc60$d2faf0cf default> From: "mrand access" To: , Cc: Subject: Car powered by water gas experiment Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 12:33:53 -0700 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: <"4Z93q1.0.qt7.f7Pyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22152 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Experiment and theory of operation questions for a hydrolysis device. The video(1) showed car engines being fuelled by water electrolysis at 1.5 to 12 VDC battery power input with the gas output going into the engine by carburettor vacuum pipe. This water gas and air mixture powers a car and it is unknown why this occurrs without any energy input onced the water is charged. Description of car electrolyzer unit: 1. Electrolyzer housing was clear 2 quart jar, to show what happens inside the unit during operation; 3 cylindrical concentric stainless steel wire mesh electrodes, inner cylinder electrode connected to negative battery, middle electrode was neutral, and the outer electrode was connected to the battery positive terminal. The electrodes were fastened to the underside of the jar plastic lid. The battery connections were made through the top of the lid. Other units used stainless steel housing for greater strength. 2. The unit was connected to the V8 engine carburettor rubber vacuum hose, that typically goes from the car rocker cover (crankcase ventilation system) to the carburettor. The connection was made through the top of the jar lid. 3. The unit used river water that had natural electrolyte elements that allowed electrolysis to occur. Water was filled 1/3 the level of the jar with air space above to the top. The jar was sitting upright with the lid on top. The electrodes were 1/3 covered with water and 2/3 open to the air space in the jar. 4. A vacuum gauge was attached on the top of the jar lid. 5. A voltmeter was used to measure the cell voltage. 6. The engine electronic distributor timing needed to be adjusted, from 10 to over 35 degrees. It also takes some time for the engine to adjust to the new fuel source with the air. The engines shown were already timed correctly. Operation: 1. The unit was connected to the 12 VDC car battery. Gases were seen developing inside the cell by electrolysis. 2. The car was started. The vacuum gauge showed a vacuum was developed in the cell, 10 to 20 PSI. The water gas formed vapour that was seen swirling inside the jar and being sucked out of the jar. 3. The battery power for electrolysis was then disconnected. The voltmeter measured the cell voltage decrease from 12 VDC to under 1 VDC. There was still electrolysis seen occurring and the car was still being powered from the unit with no battery input. 4. Connecting a 1.5 VDC battery source to the unit enhanced the power output of the car. 5. A cup of water was used to travel over 250 miles. Unusual effects: 1. The water once charged and then disconnected from battery is creating electrolysis, at under 1 VDC, under vacuum conditions between 5 to 30 PSI. 2. This gas fuels a car with water consumption of over 1000 miles per gallon. 3. A 1.5 VDC battery power source, to power the unit during operation, does not discharge. This also created higher power output for the car. Questions: 1. What effect does a vacuum sucking effect have during electrolysis to allow for self electrolysis to occur after input power cutoff? 2. How can a 1.5 VDC battery enhance the power output from the car and why it does not discharge? 3. How can a car be powered from this gas fuel? Regards, Michael Randall Ref.: 1. The last 2 hrs of the video "Out of the Horses Mouth" and the book "How to Run Your Car on Zero Point Energy" that also describes several electrolyzers, both are available from: http://web.access.net.au/nutech/joe1.html . From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 5 13:32:23 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA14132; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 13:31:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 13:31:32 -0700 Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 13:32:39 -0700 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199809052032.NAA20790 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: heat reuse, promising approach Resent-Message-ID: <"2ckLw3.0.kS3.Z-Pyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22153 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Remi wrote: >You have two phases: ordered (ferromagnetic) and disordered >(paramagnetic). Above Curie temp, paramagnetic (mu = 1.something). Apply >a magnetic field and the material becomes ferromagnetic (mu >> 1). So >wind an inductor but one must not do magnetic/electrical work, one has to >some how trick it with an imposed H field so that it supplies the >induction B in the coil. I may have a way. > >By the way, there is stacks of energy in heat. Very compact devices could >be made. A litre of water is what, 100mm^3, drop its temp by 1K per >second and generate > 4KW. > >It can be done. Realistic mechanisms, realistic materials. This is >engineering. >Remi. Hi Remi, You can check out the stuff I've collected on gadolinium in the User-addable Knowledgebase section of the Cavitation College. It might be of some help to you. There is already some pretty interesting work in progress being done in this area by some of the largest commercial manufacturing entities in the world. -Knuke Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1825 Nagle Place #210 Seattle, WA 98122 knuke aa.net http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1825 Nagle Place #210 Seattle, WA 98122 USA knuke aa.net http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 5 13:38:30 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA16426; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 13:35:44 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 13:35:44 -0700 Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 16:33:43 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Thin wall CF cell problems Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809051636_MC2-5862-E2A6 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"Q68I12.0.U04.V2Qyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22154 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex One other issue I forgot to mention is: How will you test this? How will you calibrate? I cannot think of a viable a method. Perhaps you could install a flat plate joule heater as a dummy cathode, and solder another, small, insulated heater onto the surface. Push 15 watts through the larger heater, and a half-watt through the smaller one, and see if you can detect the hot spot (hotter spot) in the middle of the hot metal. My hunch is that you will not see it. This would test the most optimistic and unrealistic configuration: one compact hot spot from which all CF heat originates. I think in real life thousands of tiny the nuclear-active spots are scattered around the cathode. This would be impossible to detect with a camera no matter how you do it, because you cannot distinguish between 15.0 and 15.5 watts. The only way to see tiny, scatted hot spots would be to power down the cathode, wait for it to cool, and look for heat after death. 15 watts, by the way, is a heck of a lot of energy. It will be very difficult to keep this cell from boiling, and whatever seals, glues or gaskets you use, they will melt and leak. The more I think about this project, the harder it sounds. There are good reasons people have not been able to observe CF hot spots directly. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 5 13:38:38 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA16483; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 13:35:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 13:35:54 -0700 Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 16:33:52 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Y2K: Jager Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809051636_MC2-5862-E2A7 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"RC6We3.0.S14.f2Qyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22155 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex This posting was off topic, and I am fed up with the hysteria and exaggeration surrounding the Y2K problem. People are not stupid. If a factory or an elevator does not work on Jan. 1, 2000, they will have enough sense to set the date back to 1999 until the problem is fixed. The world will not come to an end. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 5 13:46:53 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA19881; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 13:46:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 13:46:18 -0700 From: Chuck Davis To: Jed Rothwell Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1998 13:47:39 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <199809051636_MC2-5862-E2A7 compuserve.com> X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.5 [020] - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck Organization: ROSHI Corporation Subject: Re: Y2K: Jager MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"8guMj.0.Zs4.PCQyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22156 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 05-Sep-98, Jed Rothwell wrote: >To: Vortex >This posting was off topic, and I am fed up with the hysteria and exaggeration >surrounding the Y2K problem. People are not stupid. If a factory or an >elevator does not work on Jan. 1, 2000, they will have enough sense to set the >date back to 1999 until the problem is fixed. The world will not come to an >end. Or, at least, back to the year that the days of the month coinside with, or look like Y2K ;^) -- .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ -/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\-- RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \ / \_/ `-' \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' http://www.his.com/~emerald7/roshi.cmp/roshi.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 5 14:03:06 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA23267; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 14:02:19 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 14:02:19 -0700 From: Chuck Davis To: Chuck Davis Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1998 14:03:40 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.5 [020] - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck Organization: ROSHI Corporation Subject: Re: Y2K: Jager MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"7IVLe2.0.Th5.QRQyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22157 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 05-Sep-98, Chuck Davis wrote: >On 05-Sep-98, Jed Rothwell wrote: >>To: Vortex >>This posting was off topic, and I am fed up with the hysteria and >exaggeration >>surrounding the Y2K problem. People are not stupid. If a factory or an >>elevator does not work on Jan. 1, 2000, they will have enough sense to set >the >>date back to 1999 until the problem is fixed. The world will not come to an >>end. > Or, at least, back to the year that the days of the month coincide > with, or look like Y2K ;^) Hmmm, how about a year in the 1800's? Did we have IBM 7090s, 1401s or ANFSQ-7s, back then? -- .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ -/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\-- RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \ / \_/ `-' \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' http://www.his.com/~emerald7/roshi.cmp/roshi.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 5 17:59:37 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA11851; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 17:58:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 17:58:22 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 20:07:57 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: ANNOUNCEMENT & LOCATION OF DEMONSTRATION! Resent-Message-ID: <"4nXAp.0.yu2.juTyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22158 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ***ANNOUNCEMENT & LOCATION OF DEMONSTRATION!*** ***ANNOUNCEMENT & LOCATION OF DEMONSTRATION!*** ***ANNOUNCEMENT & LOCATION OF DEMONSTRATION!*** NEWMAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION 2050 Vineyard Dr. * Castle Rock, Colorado 80104 (303) 814-3403 email: josephnewman earthlink.net Also, for info, call: (504) 524-3033 **************************** A FREE, PUBLIC DEMONSTRATION OF JOSEPH NEWMAN'S NEWEST MOTOR/GENERATOR **************************** Joseph Newman has stated that this demonstration will feature his most advanced Motor/Generator & will show MORE Power (in Horsepower) coming out on the shaft of the Newman Motor/Generator than Power going into the Newman Energy Machine! Joseph Newman has stated that he will provide indisputable proof that the technology works! The Newman Energy Machine can and will run your home, business, & farm; provide the inexpensive energy to turn salt water into fresh water and a desert into an oasis; eliminate the need for pollution-causing conventional energy sources, reduce the cost of all produced goods, and turn the cost of your monthly electric bills from a deficit into a profit. This technology will totally decentralize our access to energy and literally change the world for the better. ***************************** COME AND SEE IT FOR YOURSELF! ***************************** Date: ***** SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1998 ****** Time: 2:00PM (Pacific Time) Place: PHOENIX, ARIZONA ************************************************ ************************************************ *****LOCATION FOR THE PHOENIX DEMONSTRATION***** ************************************************ ************************************************ The Energy Machine Demonstration will be held at: SONORAN PLAZA (in the Sonoran Plaza Ballroom) 19726 N. Remington Drive, Sun City Grand West Phoenix, Arizona contact number there: (602) 546-5194 [Ask for Angie Cholas, Facility Sales Office] Host Hotel: Windmill Inn at Sun City West 12545 West Bell Road Surprise, Arizona (Suburb of W. Phoenix) Hotel Phone Numbers: 1-800-547-4747 (then press "4") or, (602) 583-0133 [Room rates: $63-85/night] [Please mention you are attending the Joseph Newman Energy Machine Demonstration] DIRECTIONS FROM THE WINDMILL HOTEL TO SONORAN PLAZA: >From the Windmill Hotel, go west on Bell Road to Grand Avenue. Turn right on Grand Avenue. In approximately 1.5 miles you will pass a huge Safeway and Albertson Drugs on either side of Grand Avenue. 3/4 of a mile beyond will be a large entrance on the left to the community of SUN CITY GRAND. Turn left and drive to a stop light at the intersection of Sun Rise Blvd. Turn left and proceed to second stop sign at the intersection of N. Remington Drive. Take a right at this intersection and proceed about 200 yards to a building on the right which is the SONORAN PLAZA. About 100 yards behind this building is the SONORAN PLAZA BALLROOM building. [Directions to SONORAN PLAZA BALLROOM will also be available at the registration desk of the Windmill Hotel. And, if necessary, you can also call Angie Cholas (546-5194) at SONORAN PLAZA for additional directions.] _________________________________________________ Contact Number for the Demonstration: Milton Everett, Professional Engineer (602) 546-4031 [Milton Everett was the first engineer to endorse Joseph Newman's technology as early as 1982. At that time he was with the Mississippi State Department of Energy.] _________________________________________________ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * website: www.josephnewman.com Additional Information: ****************** ANNOUNCEMENT ****************** *********JOSEPH NEWMAN TO HOST RADIO SHOW********* Energy Machine Inventor Joseph Newman will host a live Radio Talk/Call-In Show: DATE: SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1998 And continuing on successive Sundays. This Radio Program will be broadcast live by the North American Broadcasting Company network via the following radio stations: KCCF: 1100 AM - Phoenix, AZ TIME: 9:00am - 9:30am (Pacific Time) WALE 990 AM - Providence, RI TIME: 12:00noon - 12:30pm (Eastern Time) Both are 50,000 Watt Stations KCCF (1100AM) covers the cities of Phoenix, Tuscon Prescott, and Casa Grande. WALE (990AM) covers cites in Massachusetts, Rhode Island & Connecticut. Collectively, both stations cover in excess of seven million people. ****************** ANNOUNCEMENT ****************** www.josephnewman.com TALK SHOW CALL-IN-NUMBER MAY BE DIALED FROM ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD: (602) 265-KCCF Earlier Shows can be downloaded from the website at: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 An Interesting Demonstration One of the more interesting demonstrations of Joseph Newman's energy machine technology was that conducted by engineers from WWL-TV (CBS-affiliate) in New Orleans. This test was broadcast (with appropriate graphs) on television and later featured on video. The following is a paraphrase from the original broadcast: "Eight, slightly-used penlight batteries were connected (in series) to a conventional electric motor. The conventional motor operated for 1 minute and 15 seconds before stopping. "These same penlight batteries were then connected to a portable model of Joseph Newman's Motor/Generator. This Motor/Generator proceeded to run and a 90-pound magnet continuously rotated for 1 HOUR and 15 MINUTES, at which time the WWL-TV engineers disconnected the batteries because of a lack of time of the part of the film crew which had to return to the TV station to produce the evening broadcast. "Then, the above-described penlight batteries were then RECONNECTED to the ORIGINAL conventional electric motor and operated THIS motor for TWO minutes and 28 seconds before the conventional motor stopped. This is nearly TWICE as long as the first time (above) --- using batteries that are not supposed to be rechargeable!" Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES CORP. 2050 Vineyard Drive Castle Rock, Colorado 80104 (303) 814-3403 josephnewman earthlink.net P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 (504) 524-3033 "I cannot conceive curved lines of force without the conditions of a physical existence in that intermediate space." --- MICHAEL FARADAY A COOLING effect has been observed. Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 07:09:05 EDT To: newman-l emachine.com Cc: josephnewman earthlink.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Newman's Machine V1.4 : A COOLING effect has been observed. Hi All, 07-09-98 - The entropy changes while the Machine runs, a COOLING effect has been observed... Today, I have conducted a new test about my Newman's machine V1.4. The purpose of this test is to check some eventual changes in the entropy of the Newman's Machine. I have used a dual probes digital thermometer (resolution 0.1 degrees) : - The first temperature probe has been used as reference for the lab temp (21.5 degrees) - The second temperature probe has been glued directly on the Newman's coil. I have wait one hour before starting the test for equalizing the temperature ( LabTemp = 21.5 degrees, Coil Temp = 21.5 degrees) The test has been conducted during one hour. Time (mn) Temp (degrees) 00 21.5 05 21.5 10 21.4 15 21.3 20 21.3 25 21.3 30 21.3 35 21.3 40 21.3 45 21.3 50 21.3 55 21.3 60 21.3 The Newman's machine has been stopped after the test (a 60 mn run) and 15 mn after the temperature has been EQUALIZED AGAIN at 21.5 degrees. This confirm the cooling effect observed in spite of the mechanical work generated and the joules' effect dissipated in the coil. The rotation speed was 286 RPM and the coil voltage used 626 V The differential voltages I/O measured on the "current control flow bridge" was 32V (Input) and 88V (Output) accross the 2uF cap with my new fast HV diodes. Sincerely, Jean-Louis Naudin The Newman Energy Machine A Cooling Effect Explanation? - by Tim Vaughan created on 08/23/98 - JLN Labs - last update on 08/23/98 Subj: Cooling Effect Explanation? Date: 23/08/1998 05:59:43 From: Tim Vaughan TRANSIENT ELECTRON COHERENCE by Tim Vaughan The following is prompted by a recent experimental observation by Jean-Louis Naudin of an anomalous cooling effect in a large coil of wire [Naudin's independently-constructed version of a Newman Motor/Generator]. I would like throw out an idea to consider and comment on. It came to me in an attempt to explain the cooling effect in a large coil of wire observed by the physicist Leon Dragone in an experiment he called the electroentropic device in 1989, as well as in his investigations of a Joseph Newman type electric motor. Sadly, his experiments were cut short by a heart condition that caused him to die at an early age. Leon measured a temperature drop of up to 2 degrees F. (0.8 C) in a large coil of wire connected to his special cold cathode arc switch. I met Leon Dragone at a conference hosted by the Planetary Association for Clean Energy in Canada. Leon and I immediately became friends as I stayed up all night talking to him about energy ideas at the conference. We had very similar ideas about the possibility of organizing (or cohering) fluctuation energy such as thermal and quantum zero point fluctuation energy. Sadly, he died a few months later he died of a heart attack. He did not publish much information but I had many phone conversations with him in which he described his ideas and experiments. At the conference Leon showed me and others, his "electroentropic device" which seemed to show an excess energy gain. It consisted of a Neon sign transformer secondary coil connected in series with a micrometer adjustable spark gap also in series with a light bulb and a 575 volt battery pack. The battery pack also had a 3.5 uFD 4000 volt capacitor connected in parallel across it. The spark gap device was a small black box with a micrometer adjustment knob and two wires sticking out. The wires were connected with alligator clips and small gauge wire. When the spark gap was shorted, the bulb would not glow at all as only 25 milliamperes was flowing through it due to the 18000 ohms of resistance in the neon sign transformer. When Leon would carefully adjust the spark gap device the light would glow quite brightly and the current would increase to over 1000 milliamperes. Leon told me that he would get the same effect with a Newman type coil connect instead of the Neon sign transformer. Leon told me and this was later confirmed by Dr. P.T. Pappas ( a physicist from Athens, Greece ) that when the spark gap was operating in "excess energy mode" they were able to measure a drop in temperature of the coil of about 2 degrees Fahrenheit or (0.8 Celsius). The spark gap was what they called cold cathode glow discharge spark. Leon Dragone also told me that he had measured a similar temperature drop in the coil of the Newman motor he had constructed. As far as I know he never attempted to thermally insulate the coil from its surroundings. Leon thought maybe he was cyclically robbing the magnet inside the coil of some of its thermal energy in someway. However, Leon told me that he was puzzled by the his observation of a temperature drop in large coil of wire with no core at all. Also the temperature drop was measured on the coil itself and not the rotating permanent magnet armature when the magnet was present. Since I had not heard of anyone else observing these effects, I considered that Dragone and Pappas had made an error in the temperature measurements or there was some other kind phenomena at work like the Peltier Effect. Most recently, Jean-Louis Naudin made a very exciting discovery of a temperature drop in a large coil when running experiments with a Joseph Newman type motors. Great work Jean-Louis! see: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jlnaudin/html/NMac0709.htm This is indeed an exciting discovery. Your work has encouraged me that this area of investigation needs more attention. Leon faxed me some ideas he had about the Newman motor effect with I posted on the Web at: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/4810/dragone1.html I am sorry about the quality of this as it was scanned from a fax. This paper proposes the idea that the excess energy comes from magnet in the coil. However, Leon told me that he also measured the temperature drop from a Newman type coil with no magnet or ferromagnetic core ! I believe these temperature drops are very significant. ____________________________________________ I wish to throw out this idea I call TRANSIENT ELECTRON COHERENCE. First here are some known facts about the free electrons in metals: THE FREE ELECTRON MODEL Some of the electrons in a metal conductor called FREE ELECTRONS are constantly moving about within the crystal structure of a metal, not just in the atomic orbits but also between the atoms. The motion of the free electrons through the metal is statistically random with as many going in one direction as another. Therefore there is no net current. Some of the motion of the electrons is due to thermal energy, however the electrons move around in the metal crystal even at absolute zero temperature. This is called the zero point energy of the free electrons. For this reason, a metal can be thought of as a "solid state plasma" consisting of positive metal ion cores held in a crystal matrix surrounded by an electron gas. Electrons act as both particles and waves. The wavelength of an electron depends on its energy (speed) The wave nature of electrons causes them to interact with the atoms in a metal conductor or semiconductor differently depending on their speed. At certain energies (speeds) the electrons resonate with the periodically spaced atoms in a metal crystal lattice and will be reflected or scattered. Due to the Pauli exclusion principle of quantum mechanics. Two electrons with same speed (wavelength) and direction (and spin) cannot occupy the same space. Therefore the energies (speeds) of the free electrons are distributed over a range of values. Electrons can have any energy (speed) within a range of allowed values. This range of values is called a band. Certain energy values are not allowed in a given crystal because they resonate with periodically spaced atoms. These missing energy values are called "forbidden energy bands". A band of allowed energy levels (speeds) will then have an upper and lower limit bounded by the forbidden regions. Because of the Pauli exclusion principle the bands fill up with electrons from the lowest to the highest allowed values. An insulator has electrons that are confined to stay within individual atoms or molecules and are not free to move throughout the material. These bound electrons can be said to exist inside energy bands which are filled so they do not allow more electrons to move in one directions than in another. So there can be no current flow. These filled energy bands are called VALENCE BANDS. Conductors also have electrons in valence bands some of which are in atomic orbits and some that are free. When an electric field is applied to a conductor such as a wire, the electrons in the valence bands can accelerate or gain energy as long as there is an allowed energy level to fill which would be the next higher level that has been vacated by another electron that has also been accelerated. Electrons with the highest allowed energy level in a given valence band will be reflected (in a perfect crystal) or at least scattered when they reach a forbidden energy level. If they are reflected they may occupy an energy level that has been vacated by an electron that was traveling in the opposite direction and has been slowed by the electric field. In this way electrons in valence bands simply exchange energy levels such that there is not net gain in energy (speed) in a single direction and therefore no net current flow due to the electrons in the valence bands. Therefore, because of this "energy musical chairs", electrons in valence bands do not contribute to current flow. In a conductor, the highest energy band is not filled by electrons. In other words, all of the available energy states in this highest energy band are not occupied. This energy band is called the CONDUCTION BAND. Electrons in the conduction band can contribute to a net current flow because of the available energy levels. Now here is where a possible way to cohere the free energy of electrons comes in................ Actual energy bands contain enormous numbers of allowed energy levels. However, imagine for purposes of understanding, that a certain conductor has a conduction band that has only the first two energy levels occupied. Therefore, there would be two electrons going in the forward direction with energy level 1 and 2 and two electrons going in the reverse direction with energy level 1 and 2. ( I am disregarding spins here) Now suppose an electric field is applied to the conductor so that the electrons will be accelerated in the forward direction. Some time later the electrons moving in the forward direction will gain an amount of energy such that they then occupy energy levels 2 and 3 in the forward direction. At the same time the two electrons traveling in the reverse direction will be decelerated so that the fastest electron moves from energy level 2 to 1 as soon as level 1 is available. The electron at level 1 however is not allowed to go to a lower level in the reverse direction and is reflected so that it would now occupy level 1 of the forward direction. As a net result, the originally forward moving electrons simply gain energy as expected by the accelerating electric field. At same time though, an additional electron is added to the forward moving group because the slowest (least energetic) conduction band electron that was moving in the reverse direction has been reflected so that it moves in the forward direction as well. As a result of this selective reflection of the slowest (lowest energy) electrons in the conduction band we would now have 3 electrons moving in the forward with only one moving in the reverse direction. A short time later the single electron moving in the reverse direction would try to occupy the forbidden level below level 1 and would also be reflected joining the others in the forward direction. At this point all 4 of the electrons in the conduction band will be moving in the forward direction. Part of the added energy of the electrons moving in the forward direction will have been contributed by the applied electric field with an additional amount added by the selective reflection of the slowest conduction band electrons originally moving in the reverse direction. This results in an amplification of the net forward current by energy contributed by the zero-point energy of the originally reverse moving electrons. This amplification effect would be short lived because the population of eligible reverse moving conduction bands electrons would be quickly depleted. In short an abruptly applied high voltage potential applied to a conductor should cause the selective reflection of the lower energy conduction band electrons traveling in opposition to the applied electric field which will contribute their kinetic energy to the forward moving current. Now if my hypothesis is correct, when a strong electric field is abruptly applied to a conductor, a transient current surge will occur that consists of a quantity of energy that has been cohered from the energy of the free electrons in the metal. If this energy can be captured somehow before it degenerates into heat or radiation, it can be utilized. This captured energy would then be replenished by the ambient energy inside and surrounding the conductor. Therefore, the entropy and temperature of the conductor would be reduced (a cooling effect). A device capturing such free energy of the electrons would constitute a macroscopic violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. However, it would really be a coherence of many microscopic heat engines (electron-ion interactions). If this hypothesis is correct, it should be possible to cohere and extract some of the fluctuation energy of the free electrons of a conductor (or semiconductor). In order to enhance this effect it would be best to use a long conductor. The effect might be best seen in a large coil of wire at lower frequencies or in a transmission line (or antenna) at higher frequencies. Abrupt switching might be accomplished with, among other things, a commutator or an appropriate spark gap. The surge might be captured by some form of diode, electronic switching device, or commutator. Please, I welcome your comments and criticisms about this hypothesis. Sincerely, Tim Vaughan ______________________________________ Posted by: EvanSoule josephnewman.com "The First Law of Thermodynamics proves that the implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are incorrect." --- JOSEPH NEWMAN From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 5 20:04:04 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA19668; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 20:03:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 20:03:04 -0700 Message-ID: <35F34CEF.A5EA6051 gold.globalcafe.co.uk> Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 04:04:14 +0100 From: energy gold.globalcafe.co.uk (John Allan) Reply-To: energy gold.globalcafe.co.uk X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Bessler's Wheel/over-unity electrolysis References: <199809051933.MAA00322 mx1.eskimo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Zg9GQ2.0.4p4.djVyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22159 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Sirs, The Bessler Wheel story brings up the exact same issues as we saw last month that remain unresolved. The archetypes involved are so powerful, still present with us and still effecting us with their ramifications through the ages. the whole PM1 PM2 debate still rages on until today and work in the field of energy is limited to the fundimental thought of his day. I cannot recommend John Collin's work strongly enough as a study of these and encourage him on to make a full exploration of them. Perhaps if the quality of the full scientific thought given to Bessler's work was aired at that time and not suppressed or misquoted, our physics would be much more developed than it is today. Bessler had the powerful inspiration of his age set in the very hub of European politics. The personal morality he displayed was faultless, he was not merely a clock maker as has been reported, he was far more widely studied than most people of his age and had a successful career to support him in medicine. His intentions were very high, he established charities which he was then punished for by malicious third parties and wanted to educate and raise the stand of living for the poor. More than anything he wanted to establish school of science and craft by which the poor could set them selves free. What is most interesting is that the parties that finally brought him down were not academic experts nor even martial forces but those inspired by petty jealousies, personal interests and prejudicial conjectured based on a lack of findings. A jealous model maker and a spiteful cake baker to the court whose status was deminished and who work was being eclipsed. Rather than assist or confirm Bessler's ideas, the former even went to effort to repicate fraudulent ways in which it could not work. The story even inculded a Randi and Maddox outfit that published libelous and belittling caractures of Bessler and deliberately stirred up trouble for the inventor over years as an alternative to the proper scientific discourse that was taking place between renown experts in the field, all of whom retained an open mind, civil inquiry and active interest.. Mr Rothwell tell us thousands of inventors have tried and failed to replicate such work, do we know that? How many are on record? Perhaps we can learn from their failures as well as Bessler's successes. What alternative mechanism can be suggested that could possibly have worked. I remain open minded because regardless of what I might believe, I do not know the truth. What interest me is the remaining dilemma of where is the meeting point between the inventor and the investor? Either the inventor bows to the investor or the investor bows to the inventor. The same as today. Why should the inventor bow to Mammon or to the legal bindings of corporation whose sole legal duty is to make profts or government department under which such corporate influence is strongly present? Either way, the inventor is almost always forced to give up all claim not only to that which he works on but also that which he will will on and conceive in th future, who he speak to, even where he travels if he is an America, Chinese or Russian citizen. Look at the kind of contracting that is thrown around in your country if you doubt that. It would not be sustainable in Europe, yet. If he had sold one he would have lost his life's work and like Harrison of the marine chronometer has something of inordinate power and value. Why should his genius not have been rewarded? How have we created such a society where the butchers of ideas flourish and while the cows are slaughtered. He set a simple deal, a one off price and asked that the money be held in escrow. The investor would have full recourse at law if he did not get what he had been offered rather than the other way around where the inventor would have been put at a disadvantage at having to take action against a fraudulent investor - of which there are more than fraudulent inventors. But Mammon and those possessed by Mammon, do not operate on those terms. Possession is 9/10th of the law, greed was good then and was a bit of violence and backstabbing. And the position of the inventor just as vulnerable now as he was in Bessler's time. What would Mr Rothwell suggest, that Bessler gave over his wheel to a third party for a few day for them to test and inspect? Who could he find to trust? He showed endless individuals of all rank working demonstrations, even prolonged test runs in a secure laboratory. He just retain the right not to disclose the mechanism because so have done so would have disseminated his unique claim to his intellectual property. Would we rush to libel him a scam? Scientifically, we cannot. We do not know. It is a sham that it was only because of the untimely death of a highly respectable gentleman and an unwarrranted attack by jealous and petty minded individuals with little understanding of the issues invovled that we are robbed today of knowing whether he did or did not do what he stated and demonstrated he could. Of course even in those days there was the influence of vested interests at play behind the curtains. The fault, and thereby the solution, remains with the society and the monetary systems we have built. It does not reward genius, it almost always punishes it. It does not engender genius and inspiration, it works to cut it back and exploit it. No one has yet given me good reason as to why genius should serve suchinterests. For money? Just to eat their bread? To remain a slave to their system? I would rather die in put in that situation - and, yes, take my work with me - which is what Bessler and other's have done rather than empower the society and rule of voilence that we have. It is strange how two different people can read the same story and take two different meanings from out of it. The solutions to such conflicts lies not only with the science but also with the context it finds itself within. Both need develop and resolved. Opinion should only be made and acted upon by findings and not subjective prejudices. Was it Bessler's Syndrome or Investor's Syndrome at fault? Perhaps a high profile public event should have been held at which Bessler would have felt secure, the public purse supporting the reward and the benefits agreed to go to the public. May be then Bessler would have felt safe enough to make his full finding public. Amazing that we still lack such public security for work in this field 250 years later. Just as graivity was said to be not a matter of physics but philosophy, perhaps it is to philosophy or spiritual and moral values that we must look to the resolution of such issues. John Allan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 5 21:25:34 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA02921; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 21:24:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 21:24:51 -0700 From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Thin wall CF cell problems Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 04:25:59 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <35f80e98.189819467 mail-hub> References: <199809051636_MC2-5862-E2A6 compuserve.com> In-Reply-To: <199809051636_MC2-5862-E2A6 compuserve.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"MDOrP2.0.Zj.IwWyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22160 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sat, 5 Sep 1998 16:33:43 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: [snip] > >The more I think about this project, the harder it sounds. There are good >reasons people have not been able to observe CF hot spots directly. > >- Jed How about a little boat that floats on the surface? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 5 22:24:16 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA12949; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 22:23:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 22:23:33 -0700 From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Papers from Origin Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 05:24:41 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <35f91b42.193055704 mail-hub> References: <35EFBDED.DFF985A0 verisoft.com.tr> In-Reply-To: <35EFBDED.DFF985A0 verisoft.com.tr> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"9CFun1.0.CA3.KnXyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22161 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 04 Sep 1998 13:16:13 +0300, Hamdi Ucar wrote: >Very interesting papers are being released by Origin Organization, >http://www.the-origin.org/. Papers are also in the archive of the xxx.lanl.gov. > >For papers goto http://www.the-origin.org/indxpprs.htm > Is it coincidental that it takes 1 hour to circumnavigate the globe at escape velocity (at sea level)? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 5 22:54:20 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA15400; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 22:42:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 22:42:42 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980906013451.008245e0 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 01:34:51 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Thin wall CF cell problems In-Reply-To: <35f80e98.189819467 mail-hub> References: <199809051636_MC2-5862-E2A6 compuserve.com> <199809051636_MC2-5862-E2A6 compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"DF1Nm3.0.Tm3.H3Yyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22162 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 04:25 AM 9/6/98 GMT, Jed Rothwell wrote: >[snip] >> >>The more I think about this project, the harder it sounds. There are good >>reasons people have not been able to observe CF hot spots directly. >> >>- Jed ? http://world.std.com/~mica/cfttime.html#cft63 ! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 6 03:45:15 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA21868; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 03:38:19 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 03:38:19 -0700 Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 04:39:36 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: John Allan cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bessler's Wheel/over-unity electrolysis In-Reply-To: <35F34CEF.A5EA6051 gold.globalcafe.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"CdEtf1.0.cL5.QOcyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22163 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 7 Sep 1998, John Allan wrote: Sirs, -snip- [most all] No one has yet given me good reason as to why genius should serve such interests. For money? Just to eat their bread? To remain a slave to their system? I would rather die in put in that situation - and, yes, take my work with me -snip- John Allan -------------------------- (sigh:( Hi John, NO, Not money! If you don't know THAT now, you didn't know THIS then! -=se=- steve (sigh:( ekwall keep fighting it though, There *IS* a balance! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 6 05:34:28 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA02429; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 05:33:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 05:33:42 -0700 Message-ID: <001901bdd992$80005540$9c4fd3d0 default> From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Inventors and Corporations Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 08:23:36 -0400 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: <"bKPKq3.0.ob.c4eyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22164 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John Allan and Jed Rothwell have provided us with thoughtful essays on the roles of the inventor and the entrepreneur, using the Meyer and Bessler affairs as models. I hope that the discussion will stimulate members of the vortex community to order copies of Collins' book from IE. Gene has imported a small stock for sale in the US. It is interesting reading. Having spent my working life in a big corporation (RCA), and having seen its operations from many perspectives, let me take a middle position. Few inventors understand the magnitude of effort and risk it takes to transform a discovered principle into a widely distributed and profitable product. Only a small handful -- now legendary names -- embraced in one mind the range of necessary qualities. Edison; Land; Eastman; Carlson; Hewlett & Packard; perhaps readers can suggest others. Notable inventors who didn't have all the qualities include DeForest; Tesla; Armstrong; Hall; Farnsworth; you can add your own hero/victims. Entrepreneurs who have been called good/bad guys include Edison; Sarnoff; Westinghouse; Morgan; Ford; you can add your own hero/predators. The entrepreneur and inventor need each other. Jed has provided a strong outline, almost a caricature, of the self-defeating inventor with his Inventor's Disease essay. John Allan and Dennis Lee have advanced the cause of the hapless inventor. Inventors can be predators and con artists as well, adroit in enticing investment in an essentially bogus schemes and devices. The finger of greed points in all directions like a weathervane. There are straightforward ways of negotiating degrees of confidence between inventors and entrepreneurs if there is good faith on both sides. These provide also warning flags if good faith is not present. One of them is the gimmick that is so simple/obvious that a glance by a prepared mind will grasp the discovery and lose for the inventor all possibility of compensation. Such was Bessler's obsession, perhaps justified. The glance might expose fraud as well as an elusive, but simple secret. Such may also have been Meyer's obsession. I have a good friend who worked for RCA and holds in his name (assigned to RCA) the patents on the technology which puts the color signal and the hi-fi sound onto VHS tape. RCA received in **royalties** over $40 million for these patents. My friend enjoyed a good career with RCA, including middle management positions, and even in retirement is called to consult on matters of VHS recording technology. He got a stipend of about $100 on the filing of the patent applications. Does he feel "exploited"? No. He happened to be at the right place at the right time, with the necessary talent, to put the pieces of the technology together. Without the context and corporate support, the invention would have not occurred (at least not by him). The inventor is entitled to respect and compensation in proportion to the ongoing value of his contribution, which in the long run should be a small royalty on the finished product. Tesla's blunder was an emotional annulment of his contract with Westinghouse when the latter's backers objected to a royalty of $1 per installed horsepower of Tesla motors. This was indeed excessive at the time. If Tesla had renegotiated for a penny per horsepower he would have died a wealthy man. Note that Morgan and others quietly paid Tesla's living expenses at the Waldorf in his latter days. In the current CF scene, it is abundantly obvious that commercial development isn't going to be easy. The two commercial endeavors I'm aware of are those of CETI and BLP. We will wait and see what happens. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 6 10:53:23 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA09514; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 10:48:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 10:48:03 -0700 Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 10:49:11 -0700 Message-Id: <199809061749.KAA03321 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: Inventors and Corporations Resent-Message-ID: <"RRzvP1.0.ZK2.Ihiyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22165 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >John Allan and Jed Rothwell have provided us with thoughtful essays on the >roles of the inventor and the entrepreneur, using the Meyer and Bessler >affairs as models. I hope that the discussion will stimulate members of the >vortex community to order copies of Collins' book from IE. Gene has imported >a small stock for sale in the US. It is interesting reading. > >Having spent my working life in a big corporation (RCA), and having seen its >operations from many perspectives, let me take a middle position. > >Few inventors understand the magnitude of effort and risk it takes to >transform a discovered principle into a widely distributed and profitable >product. Perfectly put. I have worked for and patented things for 3M in the high frequency impedance controlled connector industry. And I was paid as an engineer to do so. They hired and paid me a salary and gave me resources to use to come up with inventions. That was the job. The goal is, that I would come up with some things that made a lot of money, though I don't know that they ever made a bunch of money off of those technologies. The "public" ie market, decides which products will make the big pay offs. So the corporation is out there looking for a hundred things so that 5 of them might actually make some money. Because I knew I could create bigger and better things, I left and began my own company. 13 years later, I have been squished by Weber barbeque, had $30k PO from IBM for microwave switch technology that I got to work in the lab, but I couldn't afford to finish the development of a shipable product due to a lack of financial backing, and I have helped hundreds of people figure out their ideas for new products. What I find, is that most inventors steal their product ideas from themselves. By this I mean that they live in such fear of the big corporation ripping them off, that the keep the ideas hidden right up to their death bed and poof, they get nothing. It is expensive to develop a new technology. It is expensive to market it, sell it, manufacture inventory etc etc. Inventors usually come to me with their ideas, and they say it will retail sell for $100.00, so they figure they should get about $40 or $50 per unit sold. Then they are shocked when they are offered one to three dollars royalty. The reality is that for a good product line, the net profit margin is on the order of 10 percent. The wholesale price on that product above would be around $50.00. The cost of manufacture should be around $20.00, leaving $30.00 for marketing, sales, and manufacturing overhead expenses. The net profit, then, turns out to be on the order of $10.00. So, a $3.00 royalty is really 30 percent of the total available net profit. The inventor of course objects to this claiming that everyone is going to want to buy this wonderful widget. The problem is, they are jaded in their expectations because it is in a field that is near and dear to them, and most other people aren't going to care, and they aren't going to buy one even if they might like to have one. There will be other things they want to have even more. Ergo, the inventor, I find, thinks he/she can just go out and do it themselves. The net is, they never make a dime, and probably lose several thousand dollars trying. What inventors should realize, is that it is easy to come up with a new, valuable invention. All you need to do is to go to the store, pick out any product whatever, and improve it. Next year, your's can be the leading seller. A year later, someone elses will take the place. So if you have something that is good enough to interest a company in taking on that product like, you are extremely lucky and ought to get what you can. It isn't a one time deal. The money you make from the first invention allows you to come up with the next three inventions, and we all know geometric expansions from our study of fission bombs and nuclear reactors that absorb one neutron and emit three. But most of all, remember that this stuff is the game you are playing to have fun. Life, is all about love in the home and with friends, just to put a little focus into the reality of the bigger picture. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 6 11:24:22 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA18231; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 11:23:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 11:23:32 -0700 From: Chuck Davis To: Ross Tessien Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 11:24:55 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <199809061749.KAA03321 Au.oro.net> X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.5 [020] - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck Organization: ROSHI Corporation Subject: Re: Inventors and Corporations MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"UGpLD.0.lS4.ZCjyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22166 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 06-Sep-98, Ross Tessien wrote: >But most of all, remember that this stuff is the game you are playing to >have fun. Life, is all about love in the home and with friends, just to put >a little focus into the reality of the bigger picture. >Ross Tessien Thanx, Ross, as I climb dowm from my personal high horse :) -- .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ -/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\-- RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \ / \_/ `-' \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' http://www.his.com/~emerald7/roshi.cmp/roshi.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 6 11:47:00 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA24852; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 11:46:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 11:46:10 -0700 Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 11:48:07 -0700 From: Lynn Kurtz Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT & LOCATION OF DEMONSTRATION! In-reply-to: X-Sender: kurtz imap2.asu.edu (Unverified) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <199809061847.LAA02107 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: <"rbVEb2.0.D46.nXjyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22167 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 08:07 PM 9/5/98 -0600, you wrote: >***ANNOUNCEMENT & LOCATION OF DEMONSTRATION!*** > > NEWMAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION ************** > > Date: ***** SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1998 ****** > Time: 2:00PM (Pacific Time) >Place: PHOENIX, ARIZONA > > SONORAN PLAZA (in the Sonoran Plaza Ballroom) > 19726 N. Remington Drive, Sun City Grand > West Phoenix, Arizona Well, that lets me out. I would interrupt my usual Sunday activities if the event was actually in Phoenix. There is no such thing as "West Phoenix". Sun City is not Phoenix. It is a retirement community a good 45 min to 1 hour drive from Scottsdale. I hope the demo itself is not as misleading as the location announcement. I think they could have found a location actually in Phoenix if they wanted to. Phoenix is a hi-tech area. They could stir up a lot of interest if they tried. Sorry everyone, but I have lost interest in this one. --Lynn From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 6 12:12:41 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA32113; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 12:10:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 12:10:52 -0700 Message-ID: <35F2DD5F.E2E7D16A verisoft.com.tr> Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 22:07:11 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT & LOCATION OF DEMONSTRATION! References: <199809061847.LAA02107 smtp1.asu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"AePUd.0.Tr7.wujyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22168 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi, I feel myself little biased but it sound as a innocent campaign to selling books. :| Please note that Newman's findings could be significant, but I have doubt they are transferred to a technology yet. > > At 08:07 PM 9/5/98 -0600, you wrote: > > >***ANNOUNCEMENT & LOCATION OF DEMONSTRATION!*** > > > > NEWMAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION > ************** Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 6 12:23:04 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA01943; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 12:20:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 12:20:11 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 14:29:59 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT & LOCATION OF DEMONSTRATION! Resent-Message-ID: <"pCOSi1.0.HU.h1kyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22169 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >At 08:07 PM 9/5/98 -0600, you wrote: > >>***ANNOUNCEMENT & LOCATION OF DEMONSTRATION!*** >> >> NEWMAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION >************** >> >> Date: ***** SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1998 ****** >> Time: 2:00PM (Pacific Time) >>Place: PHOENIX, ARIZONA >> > >> SONORAN PLAZA (in the Sonoran Plaza Ballroom) >> 19726 N. Remington Drive, Sun City Grand >> West Phoenix, Arizona > >Well, that lets me out. I would interrupt my usual Sunday activities if the >event was actually in Phoenix. There is no such thing as "West Phoenix". >Sun City is not Phoenix. It is a retirement community a good 45 min to 1 >hour drive from Scottsdale. I hope the demo itself is not as misleading as >the location announcement. > >I think they could have found a location actually in Phoenix if they wanted >to. Phoenix is a hi-tech area. They could stir up a lot of interest if they >tried. > >Sorry everyone, but I have lost interest in this one. > >--Lynn Thanks for the feedback, Lynn. Certainly the staff at the Sonoran Plaza will be interested to know that they should not inform others that their Sun City Grand community is in West Phoenix. Fortunately, since the demonstration is on SATURDAY, you will not have to interrupt your usual SUNDAY activities. Regards, Evan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 6 12:51:35 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA10645; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 12:46:58 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 12:46:58 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 14:56:47 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT & LOCATION OF DEMONSTRATION! Resent-Message-ID: <"Y8OFG.0.Ec2.oQkyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22170 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Hi, > >I feel myself little biased but it sound as a innocent campaign to selling >books. :| > >Please note that Newman's findings could be significant, but I have doubt >they are transferred to a technology yet. > >> >> At 08:07 PM 9/5/98 -0600, you wrote: >> >> >***ANNOUNCEMENT & LOCATION OF DEMONSTRATION!*** >> > >> > NEWMAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION >> ************** > >Regards, > >hamdi ucar Thanks for the biased feedback, Hamdi. If any books are sold, it's a reasonable expectation that they won't even cover the expense of the facility rental, let alone of all the ancillary costs. And I, too, feel myself a little biased in saying that Joseph Newman does not share your above-described doubt. Regards, Evan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 6 17:46:56 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA22595; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 17:45:31 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 17:45:31 -0700 Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 20:43:35 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Thin wall CF cell problems Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809062046_MC2-5898-D728 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"6eyyN1.0.zW5.gooyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22171 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Robin van Spaandonk suggests suspending the cathode at the bottom of "a little boat that floats on the surface" of the electrolyte. That's a novel idea! It might not work because the lead wire powering the cathode is usually stiff, and it would hold the "boat" in one position, sometimes out of the water, and sometimes below it. But why have it float? You could attach the cathode to the bottom of a waterproof U-shaped vessel, and push the end of the vessel under the water. To watch the cathode you peer down the U-shaped vessel. You might incorporate the cathode in the bottom vessel wall itself. An alternative might be to have a foil cathode held totally submerged, just under the water, no more than a few millimeters. Perhaps the heat could pass a short distance through water without blurring excessively. The problem is that the top of the water is roiled and the water level drop surprisingly quickly with an open cell. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 6 18:48:51 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA07407; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 18:47:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 18:47:47 -0700 Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 18:49:38 -0700 From: Lynn Kurtz Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT & LOCATION OF DEMONSTRATION! In-reply-to: X-Sender: kurtz imap2.asu.edu (Unverified) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <199809070148.SAA13308 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: <"tU0kT1.0.Sp1.1jpyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22172 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 02:29 PM 9/6/98 -0600, you wrote: >Thanks for the feedback, Lynn. Certainly the staff at the Sonoran Plaza >will be interested to know that they should not inform others that their >Sun City Grand community is in West Phoenix. Fortunately, since the >demonstration is on SATURDAY, you will not have to interrupt your usual >SUNDAY activities. > Yes, I know it is on Saturday; I have it on my calendar correctly. I just slipped on the day when I typed it. Still, the event is in SUN CITY, actually Sun City West if I read your notice correctly, which is even farther away. Sun City is not Phoenix. --Lynn From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 6 19:44:12 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA25990; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 19:43:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 19:43:16 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 21:53:04 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT & LOCATION OF DEMONSTRATION! Resent-Message-ID: <"Q0ae72.0._L6.3Xqyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22173 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >At 02:29 PM 9/6/98 -0600, you wrote: > >>Thanks for the feedback, Lynn. Certainly the staff at the Sonoran Plaza >>will be interested to know that they should not inform others that their >>Sun City Grand community is in West Phoenix. Fortunately, since the >>demonstration is on SATURDAY, you will not have to interrupt your usual >>SUNDAY activities. >> > >Yes, I know it is on Saturday; I have it on my calendar correctly. I just >slipped on the day when I typed it. Still, the event is in SUN CITY, >actually Sun City West if I read your notice correctly, which is even >farther away. > >Sun City is not Phoenix. > >--Lynn Dear Lynn, Actually I am told that the demonstration is in "Sun City Grand." And Sun City Grand, Sun City West, and Sun City per se are also not Grand Rapids, nor Los Angeles, nor New Orleans, nor Chicago, nor Miami, nor New York -- nor any of the many other locations from where people are travelling to attend the demonstration. I guess Phoenix, like Scottsdale, just happens to be a bit closer to Sun City Grand. Ain't geography a hoot! Evan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 7 00:25:36 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA04909; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 00:22:45 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 00:22:45 -0700 Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 03:16:31 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT & LOCATION OF DEMONSTRATION! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"1Xfne2.0.YC1.5duyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22174 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Evan abd Hamdi... and VO.. Questions? a] is the methodology reduced to practice? b] will this be shown in a 'hardball, nuts and bolts, belt and suspenders" engineering fashion with SIMPLE instumentation ie., prony brakes, hot wire analog meters and so on ... NOT COMPUTER OR DIGITAL stuff [which I do not trust for transients] AND: Where and when ... EXACTLY is the demo??? On Sun, 6 Sep 1998, Evan Soule wrote: > >Hi, > > > >I feel myself little biased but it sound as a innocent campaign to selling > >books. :| > > > >Please note that Newman's findings could be significant, but I have doubt > >they are transferred to a technology yet. > > > >> > >> At 08:07 PM 9/5/98 -0600, you wrote: > >> > >> >***ANNOUNCEMENT & LOCATION OF DEMONSTRATION!*** > >> > > >> > NEWMAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION > >> ************** > > > >Regards, > > > >hamdi ucar > > Thanks for the biased feedback, Hamdi. If any books are sold, it's a > reasonable expectation that they won't even cover the expense of the > facility rental, let alone of all the ancillary costs. And I, too, feel > myself a little biased in saying that Joseph Newman does not share your > above-described doubt. > > Regards, > > Evan > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 7 02:17:55 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA03644; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 02:17:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 02:17:15 -0700 Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 10:16:24 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT & LOCATION OF DEMONSTRATION! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Remi Cornwall Resent-Message-ID: <"a8QdE.0.ru.QIwyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22175 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Go for it! I understand you have gone for the pure experimental approach. Do you have any thoery or method that could let us engineers and scientists reproduce your results? All the best, Remi. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 7 04:33:34 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA12289; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 04:32:14 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 04:32:14 -0700 Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 11:06:06 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: further to method Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Remi Cornwall Resent-Message-ID: <"OF85x1.0.Y_2.yGyyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22176 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Vo, If you don't want to go potty or have your integrity insulted. Try engineering well known phenomena and take that lateral step to say 'you got it wrong'. Well known phenom, 100% know and reproducible. That way you get soem where in your 3 score and 10 and not have the secret die with you or become another lost art. That's engineering. cf is well known, anti-grav. So that's why I got angryabout biasing resistors to their ou(!) because it doesn't bloody happen! Non starter! If you do something, don't be half hearted and say 'yes I know, but I was only joking' - what's the point? Why waste bandwidth? That's what I'm asking you Frederick - why bother cluttering the list with non starters and saying I was only joking? What's* your* point? Are *you* trying to confuse and throw people of the scent? What's your vested interest? Are you some kind of decoy? From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 7 04:35:06 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA12307; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 04:32:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 04:32:16 -0700 Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 09:33:50 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: heat reuse, promising approach In-Reply-To: <199809052032.NAA20790 slave3.aa.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Remi Cornwall Resent-Message-ID: <"VnlHh1.0.x_2.-Gyyr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22177 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Michael, Gadollium, yes. Cheers. I've got an ancient copy of Bozorth. Shall check your website. Remi. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 7 06:45:25 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA10604; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 06:43:44 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 06:43:44 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 08:53:33 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT & LOCATION OF DEMONSTRATION! Resent-Message-ID: <"YD2ZP.0.Yb2.GC-yr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22178 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: a] is the methodology reduced to practice? b] will this be shown in a 'hardball, nuts and bolts, belt and suspenders" engineering fashion with SIMPLE instumentation ie., prony brakes, hot wire analog meters and so on ... NOT COMPUTER OR DIGITAL stuff [which I do not trust for transients] AND: Where and when ... EXACTLY is the demo??? Dear John, a] Yes. b] If you would like an explicit description of the presentation from the inventor who will be presenting it, Joseph Newman may be reached at: (602) 977-2813. AND: Date: ***** SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1998 ****** Time: 2:00PM (Pacific Time) Place: SONORAN PLAZA (in the Sonoran Plaza Ballroom) 19726 N. Remington Drive, Sun City Grand Regards, Evan Soule' >Go for it! I understand you have gone for the pure experimental approach. >Do you have any theory or method that could let us engineers and >scientists reproduce your results? > >All the best, >Remi. Dear Remi, You might wish to visit Jean-Louis's site in France: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jlnaudin/html/NMac0709.htm Sincerely, Evan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 7 09:20:33 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA25091; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 09:18:26 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 09:18:26 -0700 Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 09:20:19 -0700 From: Lynn Kurtz Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT & LOCATION OF DEMONSTRATION! In-reply-to: X-Sender: kurtz imap2.asu.edu (Unverified) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <199809071619.JAA14238 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: <"nyqC_1.0.y76.HT0zr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22179 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 09:53 PM 9/6/98 -0600, you wrote: I guess Phoenix, like Scottsdale, just happens >to be a bit closer to Sun City Grand. > >Ain't geography a hoot! > >Evan > Evan, I have been watching the Arizona Republic (the primary newspaper for this area) for some kind of publicity and have not seen any. Possibly I have missed it. Is there going to be any local publicity for this event? Have you arranged for any news coverage of your demo by the local TV stations? --Lynn From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 7 11:58:01 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA25910; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 11:55:57 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 11:55:57 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 14:05:46 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT & LOCATION OF DEMONSTRATION! Resent-Message-ID: <"148Ld1.0.mK6.ym2zr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22180 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >At 09:53 PM 9/6/98 -0600, you wrote: > > I guess Phoenix, like Scottsdale, just happens >>to be a bit closer to Sun City Grand. >> >>Ain't geography a hoot! >> >>Evan >> > >Evan, I have been watching the Arizona Republic (the primary newspaper for >this area) for some kind of publicity and have not seen any. Possibly I >have missed it. Is there going to be any local publicity for this event? > >Have you arranged for any news coverage of your demo by the local TV stations? > >--Lynn The local media will be notified. Evan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 7 20:33:43 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA01072; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 20:30:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 20:30:33 -0700 Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 20:31:41 -0700 Message-Id: <199809080331.UAA25871 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: SOHO Recovery web site: Resent-Message-ID: <"Ws-pK1.0.eG.PJAzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22181 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: FYI: Web site with blow by blow SOHO recovery efforts, a daily log of what is going on: http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/operations/Recovery/ Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 7 21:41:54 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA30547; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 21:41:08 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 21:41:08 -0700 Message-ID: <19980908042152.5822.rocketmail send1b.yahoomail.com> Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 21:21:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Schaffer Subject: Re: Car powered by water gas experiment To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"gLd4-2.0.2T7.ZLBzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22182 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Michael Randall asked: >Questions: >1. What effect does a vacuum sucking effect have during >electrolysis to allow for self electrolysis to occur after >input power cutoff? The lower pressure will immediately cause gas dissolved from running at atmospheric pressure to "fizz" off. This might look like a dramatic effect to the naive beholder. Similarly, water will boil if pressure is lowered enough. However, the boiling is not sustanied unless heat is supplied to the water, because the lost heat of vaporization quickly cools the water. I would not expect much bubbling after a while. But, is there some way that the demonstrators could be letting air leak into the jar in such a way that it bubbles underwater? I don't know---just a speculation. >2. How can a 1.5 VDC battery enhance the power output from >the car and why it does not discharge? The thermoneutral point of a water electrolytic cell with nonreactive electrodes is very close to 1.50 V. Almost no current flows at this current. Usually a few tenths of a volt of "overvoltage" is required to overcome nonidealities and make an appreciably large current flow. Also note, most "1.5 volt batteries" are actually less than 1.5 volt, typically closer to 1.4 volt. At 1.4 volt, No current will flow through an ideal cell. >3. How can a car be powered from this gas fuel? I know of no way. I do know that I have respect for theater magicians. They fool me every time, even though I know they are fooling me and I try to figure out how they do it. This is why any scientific demonstration must allow the observers to probe all aspects of the system. And, it is much easier to make a trick videotape than to be a good magician. I can speculate that the demonstrators have one of the myriad of hoses under the hood of a modern automobile connected to a small propane tank someplace. (I am assuming that they disconnected the gasoline feed, since leaving it connected would be too obvious.) == Michael J. Schaffer _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 8 02:07:07 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA24815; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 02:04:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 02:04:18 -0700 Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 10:03:31 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT & LOCATION OF DEMONSTRATION! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Remi Cornwall Resent-Message-ID: <"LVSWF3.0.f36.HCFzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22183 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: VO, Can anybody expand on Tim Vaughan's TEC. Apologies to Frederick, I didn't realise what you were getting at. I thought you meant steady state. There could be something in this transient idea. Naudlin et al seem to have performed very robust experiments. Remi. Hurricanes running on zpe still sucks though. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 8 08:31:59 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA04499; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 08:29:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 08:29:33 -0700 Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 11:26:38 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: [OFF TOPIC] Akira Kurosawa Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809081130_MC2-58BE-E36D compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"jBOo53.0.861.TrKzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22184 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex With the death of Akira Kurosawa, I feel another chunk of my youth passing into history. If you have not seen his masterpiece "The Seven Samurai" you should. See it in a movie theater rather than on television. His quieter work, "Ikiru," does better in the transition to the televison screen, but it is still a shame to see a great movie butchered to fit that medium. I also recommend "Rashomon," "Yojimbo," "Dersu Uzala" (in Russian), "Ran" and "Do desuka den." They are all grim. He made a few comedies but I did not find them particularly funny. Ingmar Bergman made comedies too, with similar results. Arthur Sullivan (I think) and Woody Allan tried to write serious drama. People should stick to what they are good at. As Steven Spielberg said on Sunday, Kurosawa was the visual Shakespeare of the 20th century. (He said something like that; I am translating from the Yomiuri.) - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 8 10:10:04 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA06702; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 10:08:34 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 10:08:34 -0700 Message-ID: <19980908164941.27343.rocketmail send101.yahoomail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 09:49:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Anton Rager Subject: Speed of Gravity? To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"afDgq2.0.Ye1.GIMzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22185 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hello All, Question: Is the force of gravity a light-speed event, or is it instantaneous? I remember this coming up before, but the results of the discussions are still a bit hazy. [If I remember correctly, there was no real agreement.....but the archives are quite un-friendly for subject/thread searches.] == 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 Sep 8 11:58:58 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA17516; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 11:53:12 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 11:53:12 -0700 Message-ID: <35F57C38.33F56F49 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 21:49:28 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Speed of Gravity? References: <19980908164941.27343.rocketmail send101.yahoomail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"L5nFG.0.bH4.NqNzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22186 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Anton Rager wrote: > > Hello All, > > Question: > > Is the force of gravity a light-speed event, or is it instantaneous? > The only (weak) argument is the relativity. Its prohibit anything travel above c. In a discussion with Einstein, it had responded this question using this argument. As the gravitational waves remain undetected despite huge effort, it is not experimentally proved it propagate at c. If the gravity is instantaneous, there will be no gravitational waves. There are many gravitational theories, many not compatible with GR. It is possible there are more solutions (for propagating speed) than Newtonian and Einsteinian. Regards, hamdi ucar . From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 8 13:14:20 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA11892; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 13:10:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 13:10:37 -0700 Message-ID: <35F59009.50449691 crmc2.univ-mrs.fr> Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 22:14:01 +0200 From: "Jean - Paul Bibérian" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [fr] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" Subject: Quote from Former French President: Georges Pompidou Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"EAVxG2.0.jv2.yyOzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22187 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear all, I think you will all enjoy this quote from former French President: Georges Pompidou (now deceased): There are three ways to ruin yourself: gambling, women and research: gambling is the fastest, women is is the most pleasant but resarch is the safest. Jean-Paul Biberian PS : The story doesn't tell if he checked them all.... From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 8 13:39:30 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA21679; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 13:35:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 13:35:16 -0700 Message-Id: <199809082035.PAA15780 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 15:35:07 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: Speed of Gravity? Resent-Message-ID: <"20J0D.0.BI5.2KPzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22188 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Hello All, > >Question: > >Is the force of gravity a light-speed event, or is it instantaneous? ***{Neither. If gravity were a lightspeed event, it would have a force component tangential to the earth's orbit which would be large enough to either hurl the earth out of its orbit or cause it to spiral into the sun, depending on whether you endorse a pull theory or a push theory of gravity. In the push theory (le Sage), the force would act to slow the earth in its orbit, while from the perspective of any pull theory, the force would tend to hurl the earth out of its orbit. Based on a very rough calculation, which I will not go into here, if gravity propagates at the speed of light it will tend to alter the speed of the earth in its orbit at a rate of 6(10^-5) cm/sec^2. Result: under the pull theory, the earth would be hurled out of its orbit in a mere 630 years! The first person to notice this was apparently Pierre Simon Laplace, who demonstrated in *Mechanique Celeste*, in 1804, that in order to hold the earth in its orbit for the required period of time, the speed of gravity must be at least 100 million times the speed of light. [See *Celestial Mechanics*, by P.S. Laplace, Chelsea Publ. Co., Bronx, NY, 1966, vol. 4, pg. 645.] Bottom line: Einstein's "universal speed limit" was refuted before his grandfather was a gleam in his great grandfather's eye. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >I remember this coming up before, but the results of the discussions >are still a bit hazy. [If I remember correctly, there was no real >agreement.....but the archives are quite un-friendly for >subject/thread searches.] > > > >== >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 Sep 8 16:33:51 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA03576; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 16:32:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 16:32:29 -0700 Message-ID: <000001bddb80$da9a8b20$ec4ad3d0 default> From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Akira Kurosawa Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 15:28:08 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Resent-Message-ID: <"tAcky3.0.mt.CwRzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22189 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To Jed's lament at the passing of Kurosawa, I might add my favorite of his films, "Dreams". It is a series of loosely connected episodes, seeing both the destructivenss of man and his capacity for beauty. The last episode, the Waterwheel Village, is a treasured gem in itself. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 8 17:06:15 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA22899; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 17:05:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 17:05:21 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980908195714.00829b70 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 19:57:14 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Akira Kurosawa In-Reply-To: <000001bddb80$da9a8b20$ec4ad3d0 default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"6l4CL3.0.gb5._OSzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22190 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Roshamon is ON TOPIC. Mitchell Swartz At 03:28 PM 9/8/98 -0400, you wrote: >To Jed's lament at the passing of Kurosawa, I might add my favorite of his >films, "Dreams". It is a series of loosely connected episodes, seeing both >the destructivenss of man and his capacity for beauty. The last episode, the >Waterwheel Village, is a treasured gem in itself. > >Mike Carrell > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 8 18:33:25 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA21111; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 18:31:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 18:31:21 -0700 Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 21:29:00 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Akira Kurosawa Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809082131_MC2-58C0-5B8C compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"lhSew3.0.m95.ffTzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22191 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Mitch Swartz writes, "Roshamon is ON TOPIC." That's spelled wrong. It's Rashomon, "Gate of Hell." Mon, meaning gate, is the same character the Chinese pronounce "men" as in Tiananmen Square "Gate of Heavenly Peace," which it hasn't been lately. "Rashomon" is a short story written by Akutagawa in 1927, but the movie is mostly based on another Akutagawa short story, "Yabu no naka," (In a Thicket). That's confusing, and if this wasn't off topic before, it is by now! Also, Spielberg called Kurosawa "the pictorial Shakespeare of our time." (I was close.) - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 8 18:48:16 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA28023; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 18:39:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 18:39:48 -0700 Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 18:42:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Ostrowski X-Sender: jimostr mailserv1 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Y2K: Government storing MRE's in Caves (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"M1mOH1.0.hr6.anTzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22192 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Vortex - this post may be borderline off topic, but imagine for the moment we were all sitting at a rather large round table discussing the various science subjects we are interested in and whoever is closest to a particular window in the room happens to look out and notice something rather ominous headed this way . Take it as something like that , just something I noticed while looking in some other direction besides science- Jim Ostrowski ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 12:50:46 -0700 From: American Patriot Friends Network To: "\"apfn onelist.com\"" Subject: Y2K: Government storing MRE's in Caves For ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 11:47:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Ndunlks aol.com Mon, 7 Sep 1998 14:46:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Y2K: Government storing MRE's in Caves From: seer7 netusa1.net (Seer7) Hi, This is off the Ark list. Interesting. S. Below are two differnet notes that I received today. I took all the return paths off of these so that they can be passed around. I personally know both sources and they are EXTREMELY credible. Perhaps we can locate a source near Kansas City..to look into this (with pictures)......I am MOST curious... marie - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - name Here's the post I received yesterday from a Y2K chat friend regarding the situation. The second message is one I received today from him. He'll be keeping me posted on what else he learns. Jeff > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yesterday's Post------- Dear friends, As some of you know, I live in a poor and working class neighborhood in kansas city, and am involved with various activities that help poor people become less poor. As part of this, I often take in people who are homeless, or would be if not for a safe harbor. One of my housemates just got a four month temporary job unloading trucks at an underground storage center located near my neighborhood (KC has a lot of underground limestone caves that are used for storage). Anyway, this particular contract is a government contract, and the product being unloaded and stored is MRE's. that is, "meal ready to eat", which i believe is the current incarnation of the old army c rations. how many mre's are on a truck? all day, 8 hours a day, for four months. that is a LOT of meals ready to eat. Note that I didn't hear this from somebody who heard from somebody, i heard this from somebody in my own household who is unloading the mres, beginning at 7:30 in the am. Three things: First, I am comforted to know that this large amount of food is being stored here locally. Second, if you have any fiends or acquaintances who do temporary labor or casual jobs, you might ask around and see if any such operations are going on in your city.Three, somebody is taking this really seriously. mre's aren't cheap. Today's Post -------------- Dear Jeff and everybody, Today they unloaded nine trucks, and then were let go early because some additional expected trucks didn't show. It takes two guys about 1-1/2 hours to unload a truck, and each gets $35. Don't know if this space has been used to store mre's before, but that's on the list of questions to scope out. It does seem to be a government contract, the supervisors seem sure of that. It has been confirmed that this is new, that is, it isn't the regular cold storage location for Ft. Leonard Wood, etc. One of the other laborers said that each truck had 3500 cases, so today there were nine trucks times 3500 cases equals 31,500 cases. Anybody know how many mre's are in a case? This would seem to be literally an enormous amount of food, as if there were six mre's in each case, that would mean 189,000 means were unloaded today alone, and today was a short day. He was called back to work at 3:30 in the afternoon, but the expected trucks still didn't arrive. Note that the laborers apparently have to +spc- a certain amount of time sitting around and waiting. Since the contract is for four months, 22 work days a month, and if today's unloading was an average work day, and there are at least six mre's per case, then we're talking a minimum of 16,632,000 mres. Any way you look at that, it is a large amount of prepared food, being tucked securely away in a limestone cavern in KCMO. It's three meals a day for 500,000 people for 11 days, and that's the low estimate, since today was deemed a slack day by those doing the labor. - - - - -- Note: this is from another source... came in after the top portion.... > >>>>>>>>>>>> I researched MRE's just this evening to learn more about them. The full meal type MRE comes 12 per case, and the case weighs 17 pounds. So, for doing some math, double the figures you were dealing with. Using Robert's math that would come to 33,264,000 meals - using 22 work days per month, for 4 months, and the light work load experienced by Robert's friend that particular day. Assuming 12 per case, that's 2,772,000 cases at 17 pounds per case equals 47,124,000 pounds of food, or 23,562 tons. That would mean you could feed 500,000 people 3 meals per day for 22.17 days or roughly 100,000 people for just over 3 months (about 111 days actually). These are large numbers indeed and we can all look forward to learning more about this. Robert, can you put the local news people on it to open it up? Would that be wise or not? I don't know, but if appropriate, it's one heck of a story they may wish to track down. God bless all of you, << End of Forwarded message >> [snip] Local Y2K Update: I received a telephone call from a highly credible source. This informant told me that government employees recently attended a Y2K meeting in Orange County. At this meeting, one of the handouts was a listing of all the Mormon Canneries. Even more disturbing was the fact, these employees were casually told not to make this public so that they could have the necessary time to acquire their long-term storage food first. [snip] For anyone needing a place to "retreat' to from the cities, we have 54 acres in the middle of nowhere (in AZ) we are planning on improving. We will be drilling a well, and planting a garden, as well as building domes under some "hills" on the property in case they're needed. If they're not, "oh well." If they are, they're there! Anyone interested please reply to this e-mail. Thanks! Y2K - Retreat: Clarence; ++++ Y2K ++++ *** Cassandra Project We advocate planning and preparedness in the event year 2000 related disruptions occur. http://millennia-bcs.com/CASFRAME.HTM Y2K / ELIF KABAN http://www.yahoo.com/headlines/980202/tech/stories/2000_3.html Y2K EMAIL ALERTS WATERGUARD 2000 http://www.y2ktimebomb.com/ YEAR 2000 INFORAMTION CENTER http://www.year2000.com/y2k-main1.html YEAR 2000 PAUL REVERE ALERTS http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/roleigh_martin/ YEAR 2000 ELECTRIC UTILIES ALTERS http://www.euy2k.com/index.htm Y2K / GARY NORTH http://www.garynorth.com Y2K / WESTERGAARD YEAR 2000 http://www.y2ktimebomb.com Y2K / AN ICEBERG CALLED Y2K (TODD J. HEUSKIN) http://www.gold-eagle.com/gold_digest_98/heuskin030798.html GSA - GENERAL SERVICES ADMIN ON Y-2000 http://y2k.fts.gsa.gov/ GSA - VENDOR LINKS http://y2k.fts.gsa.gov/openinfo/index.asp#vendor_links GOVERNMENT INDUSTRY FORUM y-2000 http://y2k.fts.gsa.gov/forums/apr1998/index.html WESTGARD TIME BOMB 2000 Y2K: Nuclear Weapons Computer System Pose Worldwide Threat http://www.y2ktimebomb.com/ http://cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/9806/14/sm.02.html Y2K Net Family http://www.geocities.com/PicketFence/3949/index.html Y2K - TIME BOMB http://www.y2ktimebomb.com/Bios/jlbio.htm Microsoft Year 2000 Resource Center http://www.microsoft.com/y2k/ NSTL's Year 2000 Testing Program http://www.nstl.com/html/ymark_2000.html *** COMPUTERWORLD Y2K SCOREBOARD http://www.computerworld.com/home/features.nsf/All/980706score *** Y2K - Recent articles on the Year 2000 problem http://www.well.com/user/declan/y2k/ *** Y2K - NUCLEAR WAR AND THE MILLENNIUM BUG http://www.terminator3armageddon.com/conspira/nukey2k.html Yellowstone Information Services http://www.yellowstoneinfo.com/ Free Y2K information http://www.y2ksupply.com/index.ASP One can easily turn-off Caller-ID from any touch-tone phone-line by dialing _*67_ prior to dialing their number. If using your computer to dial, add a comma after the *67. Asterisk or (Star) 67 turns off Caller-ID for that particular call. American Patriot Friends Network (APFN) APFN EMAIL LIST SUBSCRIBE/UNSCBSCRIBE IN SUBJECT LINE TO APFN netbox.com APFN ONELIST: http://www.onelist/subscribe.cgi/apfn http://www.esotericworldnews.com/apfncont.htm http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/apfn/ APFN IS SUPPORTED BY GIFT/DONATIONS: c/o HC-34, BOX 18, Caliente, Nevada 89008 "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.....!" Hosea 4:6 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 8 19:21:50 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA14895; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 19:18:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 19:18:52 -0700 Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 20:19:51 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: "usat usa.net" cc: freenrg-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com, m~m Subject: McGwire /USA President/ and people in general Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"DL8vF2.0.ae3.CMUzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22193 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi ALL!! :):):):):):):):) For those that don't like like sports, bear with me :) for a SHOT was heard around the world tonight for the "good guys!" Mark McGwire has hit his 62nd Home run in Baseball! St. Louis MO can be proud. Baseball, Is bringing a LIGHT back into the world! I understand the president is expected to make a call of congrat(s) as in men-on the moon, super-bowl etc. Where is CLinton tonight BTW? Truth, Justice & the American Way! We now return you to your normal whatever! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 8 20:32:55 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA18068; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 20:29:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 20:29:42 -0700 Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 20:30:49 -0700 Message-Id: <199809090330.UAA27714 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: Speed of Gravity? Resent-Message-ID: <"-ZcAJ3.0.9Q4.bOVzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22194 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >>Hello All, >> >>Question: >> >>Is the force of gravity a light-speed event, or is it instantaneous? > >***{Neither. If gravity were a lightspeed event, it would have a force >component tangential to the earth's orbit which would be large enough to >either hurl the earth out of its orbit or cause it to spiral into the sun, >depending on whether you endorse a pull theory or a push theory of gravity. >In the push theory (le Sage), the force would act to slow the earth in its >orbit, while from the perspective of any pull theory, the force would tend >to hurl the earth out of its orbit. Very astute point. Steve Carlip at UC Davis pointed this one out to me. What he is saying is that if gravity is a pull or a push, then the time delay of the sun's pull on the earth causes the location of the pulling component to be in the wrong place due to the earths velocity. It takes light about 8 minutes to make it from the sun to the earth, and so the sun is not "apparently" wobbling around in a circle as viewed form the moving earth. That wobble has the sun always a little to the side of where it's true instantaneous position really is. And so if the earth were being pulled or pushed from or toward that location, then the earth would speed up or slow down. What is missed in that analysis, is the fact that the orientation of the sun's location is additionally rotating. So you have an instantaneous direction vector, but you additionally have a rotation of that vector. The rotation component is never considered in the above analysis. That component should work as a gravito magnetic field to use today's terms. Basically, the spacetime nodal structure should be rotating in a manner similar to how it rotates (IMO) in a magnetic field. Except instead of the positive and negative nodes rotating in opposite directions, then both rotate in the same direction for the gravito effect. Thus, that is where the compensation comes from. Spacetime is distorted at c, but you must consider both the direct component of acceleration, and the curvature (ie like an electron moving across a magnetic field, except a gravito electric field causes both positive and negative (and neutral) particles to all curve in the same direction). When you study the interference pattern that results from treating sub atomic particles as resonances, then the ideas above begin to become less than muddy murky water. I seem to see them fairly well, but I have been working with them for almost 3 years to gain the degree of clarity I now have. And, the above description completely ignores the cosmological constant thrust component of gravitation due to mass to energy conversion in the core of the sun, and thus would never anticipate coronal mass ejections, t-tauri jets, or planetary nebula and FLIERs. So the above description of gravity is only the component of it that GR treats as spacetime curvature. And it does not account for the dynamic nature of the component of GR called, the cosmological constant, erroneously I might add, since that component is due to fusion inside of stars and their emission of aether. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 8 21:21:48 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA05540; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 21:20:31 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 21:20:31 -0700 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: freenrg-l eskimo.com, ad502@iesun9 Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 21:11:30 -0700 Subject: Re: Cooling Effect and TEC Message-ID: <19980908.211907.12166.3.tv juno.com> References: X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1-11,16-23,31-32,38-39,48-49,52-53,55-56,58-65, 67-68,70-81 From: tv juno.com (Tim Vaughan) Resent-Message-ID: <"IbZ081.0.HM1.D8Wzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22195 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 8 Sep 1998 10:03:31 +0100 (BST) Remi Cornwall writes: >VO, >Can anybody expand on Tim Vaughan's TEC. >Apologies to Frederick, I didn't realise what you were getting at. I >thought you meant steady state. There could be something in this >transient idea. Naudlin et al seem to have performed very robust >experiments. >Remi. Hi Remi, Indeed, the experiment by Jean-Louis Naudin looks very intriguing. Especially since Leon Dragone reported the same effect in the late 1980's. The physicist P.T. Pappas also observed Leon's experiments and reported the cooling effect. However, it needs to be replicated and further verified. With regard to my speculative theory to explain the cooling effect: (See J. Naudins web page "The Search for Overunity": http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jlnaudin/html/NewMcool.htm ) Transient Electron Coherence, as I call it, is an idea derived from the fact that free (conduction) electrons traveling through a metal crystal lattice, can be caused to reflect when they reach certain "forbidden" energies (wavelengths). This can happen as an electron accelerates OR decelerates. Since the highest energy band (range of allowable energies) is only partially filled (filled from lowest energies first), the reflections due to reverse moving / slowing electrons should greatly exceed the reflections due to forward moving / accelerating electrons. The TEC effect should be greater at higher voltages such as in the stator coil of a Newman motor. The high voltage can be from the power supply (batteries) or field collapse. Also it would seem logical that a longer coil (more windings) would make the effect more pronounced because there is less side scattering in long thin wires and of course greater magnetic field for a given small current. Why is the effect only transient ? First there is only a limited population of eligible electrons that are near the lower energy boundary of the conduction band. It seems to me, that the decrease in entropy due to electron coherence would be quickly lost due to electron scattering. So like a pulsed LASER, the population of "negative temperature" electrons would have be restored periodically by ambient energy. The energy gained due to the TEC effect would have be captured by proper commutation of the coil like J. Newman and J. Naudin apparently do in the large coil motors. The energy of random moving electrons in a metal (Fermi ZPE and thermal energy) is enormous, if only a small amount could be cohered it would be substantial. I would like to hear more comments from physicists and others who might have greater knowledge of the behavior free electrons in metals. In addition to the Transient Electron Coherence idea, other possible explanations may include: - a mistaken observation - electromagnetic interference to the electronic thermometer - an expansion of the electron gas in the conductor - a Phase Conjugate time reversal involving electrons (T.E. Bearden) - some kind of effect similar to the Peltier effect. I think Jean-Louis Naudin's careful plotting of temperature eliminate the first two possibilities, but still possible, especially the EMF idea. Phase Conjugation ? Maybe. It works with light. Why not with electrons ? The last idea does not make sense to me. Where does the heat move to ? Peltier effect moves heat across a junction. Best Regards, 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 Wed Sep 9 03:21:58 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA01288; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 03:19:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 03:19:13 -0700 Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 11:18:24 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Cooling Effect and TEC In-Reply-To: <19980908.211907.12166.3.tv juno.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Remi Cornwall Resent-Message-ID: <"uT48r.0.2K.WObzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22196 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I'll have a think about this. Are youtrying to draw an analogy to laser operation and TEC? Different particles and different stats, though analogies are good, laser aren't ou. More I think about idea, the more I like it. I visualise the bands as like a ramp sloping due to the applied pd. The high electrons fall easily down the ramp to unoccupoied statess. The low electrons intially moving up the ramp all try to cram into same states. I'm trying to visualise the steady state and how a small drift is superimposed on the random motion; at ss, there are still electrons going uphill. All very wishy-washy at the mo, need time to think. Also still trying to come up with schemes to avoid electrical or mechanical work on ferromagnetic near curie point. Got to trick it some how with field bias point so its induction field comes from heat when energy balance is done. If I can get that circuit, that scheme I'll order the parts today. Remi. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 9 06:03:15 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA04764; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 05:57:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 05:57:42 -0700 Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 13:56:49 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: TEC, 'laser' in a wire Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Remi Cornwall Resent-Message-ID: <"_2INc3.0.KA1.5jdzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22197 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Thinking aloud wishy-washy musings. In a laser, we concentrate on getting a population inversion to a metastable state so that they fall enmass to the lower level. In TEC, the population inversion is done for us in a way by the electrons already cramming the lower levels. They climb the against the applied pd by their heat energy *and* zpe, whereupon they force or, trigger the higher e-s to drop and liberate their energy via the normal way of photons (say a LED) or phonons if its wasteful disapation. I'm trying to figure why at steady current this energy can't be tapped. I can see why for heat, the heat already present (not from electrical work) makes them scale the 'ramp' and ultimately drop making phonons - no gain. Don't know the argument for zpe. So somehow, one must persuade them not to drop and liberate phonons. Graphically as the e-s move to the right (the ramp is falling from left to right say) we draw a construction and transfer the e-s from left to right horizontally, it now hangs in a high state. So here is something to calculate because I think that would give you pulse width maximum. This short time interval when the electrons to the right are just about to drop is when you can extract energy before it get wasted. I've said nothing new really, just re-explained it with a laser like analogy BUT may be there is something that could be calculated - the drop time. All still pictures and diagrams going around my head, nothing more concrete yet. There might by ways to 'modulate' the time spent in this state to make it longer, just a guess. Remi. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 9 06:14:30 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA08391; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 06:09:02 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 06:09:02 -0700 Message-ID: <19980909131018.9300.rocketmail send104.yahoomail.com> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 06:10:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Anton Rager Subject: Re: Speed of Gravity? To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"QFtB_1.0.r22.jtdzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22198 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Thanks Ross, As usual, a very interesting explanation....but, I'm still curious what your view on the velocity of gravity is? If we were able to produce gravity waves in a laboratory, what would their propegation rate be? ---Ross Tessien wrote: > > >>Hello All, > >> > >>Question: > >> > >>Is the force of gravity a light-speed event, or is it instantaneous? > > > >***{Neither. If gravity were a lightspeed event, it would have a force > >component tangential to the earth's orbit which would be large enough to > >either hurl the earth out of its orbit or cause it to spiral into the sun, > >depending on whether you endorse a pull theory or a push theory of gravity. > >In the push theory (le Sage), the force would act to slow the earth in its > >orbit, while from the perspective of any pull theory, the force would tend > >to hurl the earth out of its orbit. > > > Very astute point. Steve Carlip at UC Davis pointed this one out to me. > What he is saying is that if gravity is a pull or a push, then the time > delay of the sun's pull on the earth causes the location of the pulling > component to be in the wrong place due to the earths velocity. It takes > light about 8 minutes to make it from the sun to the earth, and so the sun > is not "apparently" wobbling around in a circle as viewed form the moving > earth. That wobble has the sun always a little to the side of where it's > true instantaneous position really is. And so if the earth were being > pulled or pushed from or toward that location, then the earth would speed up > or slow down. > > What is missed in that analysis, is the fact that the orientation of the > sun's location is additionally rotating. So you have an instantaneous > direction vector, but you additionally have a rotation of that vector. The > rotation component is never considered in the above analysis. That > component should work as a gravito magnetic field to use today's terms. > Basically, the spacetime nodal structure should be rotating in a manner > similar to how it rotates (IMO) in a magnetic field. Except instead of the > positive and negative nodes rotating in opposite directions, then both > rotate in the same direction for the gravito effect. > > Thus, that is where the compensation comes from. Spacetime is distorted at > c, but you must consider both the direct component of acceleration, and the > curvature (ie like an electron moving across a magnetic field, except a > gravito electric field causes both positive and negative (and neutral) > particles to all curve in the same direction). > > When you study the interference pattern that results from treating sub > atomic particles as resonances, then the ideas above begin to become less > than muddy murky water. I seem to see them fairly well, but I have been > working with them for almost 3 years to gain the degree of clarity I now have. > > And, the above description completely ignores the cosmological constant > thrust component of gravitation due to mass to energy conversion in the core > of the sun, and thus would never anticipate coronal mass ejections, t-tauri > jets, or planetary nebula and FLIERs. So the above description of gravity > is only the component of it that GR treats as spacetime curvature. And it > does not account for the dynamic nature of the component of GR called, the > cosmological constant, erroneously I might add, since that component is due > to fusion inside of stars and their emission of aether. > > Ross Tessien > > > > > == 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 Wed Sep 9 08:03:02 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA14130; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 08:01:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 08:01:35 -0700 Message-ID: <35F69763.139B58C1 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 17:57:39 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex Subject: ozone emission from caduceus coil Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"a3kw52.0.iS3.EXfzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22199 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi all, If you remember my related posts on recent week, I described my coil setup which leads ozone emission. Still this experiment run on my bench and easily detectable ozone emission continue. I have several reason to think this emission is not due to simple i onization of air by high strength e-fields and voltage, because they are absent (apparently). I need help to investigate the cause and will describe my exact setup to anybody try to duplicate it. Although there is a chance to not duplicate the effect because specific components are used and slight irregularity on my caduceus coil. Anyway, the O2 to O3 transition could be a caused by a complex mechanism using RF and may have further scientific importance. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 9 09:31:50 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA21142; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 09:28:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 09:28:04 -0700 Message-Id: <199809091628.LAA06341 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 11:27:54 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: Speed of Gravity? Resent-Message-ID: <"rG4_a3.0.GA5.Kogzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22200 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >>>Hello All, >>> >>>Question: >>> >>>Is the force of gravity a light-speed event, or is it instantaneous? >> >>***{Neither. If gravity were a lightspeed event, it would have a force >>component tangential to the earth's orbit which would be large enough to >>either hurl the earth out of its orbit or cause it to spiral into the sun, >>depending on whether you endorse a pull theory or a push theory of gravity. >>In the push theory (le Sage), the force would act to slow the earth in its >>orbit, while from the perspective of any pull theory, the force would tend >>to hurl the earth out of its orbit. > > >Very astute point. Steve Carlip at UC Davis pointed this one out to me. >What he is saying is that if gravity is a pull or a push, then the time >delay of the sun's pull on the earth causes the location of the pulling >component to be in the wrong place due to the earths velocity. It takes >light about 8 minutes to make it from the sun to the earth, and so the sun >is not "apparently" wobbling around in a circle as viewed form the moving >earth. That wobble has the sun always a little to the side of where it's >true instantaneous position really is. And so if the earth were being >pulled or pushed from or toward that location, then the earth would speed up >or slow down. ***{According to the push theory of gravitation (leSage), particles incomparably smaller and faster than photons are coming at us from all directions. Most of them simply pass through our bodies without effect, but a tiny percentage are absorbed, and exert tiny imulses on our bodies when they do so. If we were floating in intergalactic space, these various impulses would cancel one another, since equal numbers would be exerted in all directions. But, since we are in fact on the surface of the earth, the result is an unbalanced force: many of the particles (which leSage called "ultramundane corpuscles") that would fly up to strike us from beneath our feet if we were floating in space are instead absorbed by the earth. Hence those striking us from above exert greater force than those striking from below, and we experience a net force pushing us down toward the earth. We call that force the force of gravity. Naturally, the same force acts to hold the earth in its orbit, since the sun blocks many of the ultramundane corpuscles that would otherwise strike the earth from the sunward side. Hence those ultramundane corpuscles striking the earth from the side away from the sun are not completely offset by those striking from the sunward side. Hence we have a net force pushing the earth toward the sun, which is yet another manifestation of the force we call gravity. Since the earth is flying around the sun with an average orbital speed of about 18 miles per second, the ultramundane corpuscles striking it from the nightside do not push the earth directly toward the sun, but toward a point determined by the resultant of the earth's orbital velocity and the velocity of the ultramundane corpuscles. The effect occurs for the same reason that downward falling rain seems to come in at an angle if you are driving in an automobile: the faster you drive, the greater the average angle of impact of the droplets on your car becomes, with more and more striking your car from the front, and fewer and fewer striking it from the back. The result of this growing imbalance is a growing impulse from the rain tending to slow down your car. Note, however, that the velocity of the raindrops is also a factor. If they were falling at millions of miles per hour, they would still appear to be falling vertically even if your car were moving 200 miles per hour. The ultramundane corpuscles falling on the dark side of the earth, in short, are analogous to raindrops falling on a moving automobile: they exert an impulse that has two components, one pushing the earth toward the sun, and the other tending to oppose the motion of the earth in its orbit. It is this latter, retrograde force, that, in the push theory, would cause the earth to spiral into the sun is a few hundred years if gravity propagated through space at the speed of light. Since the earth has, in fact, been circling the sun for more than 4 billion years, it follows that push gravity must propagate at many millions of times the speed of light to account for the known facts. Similar considerations apply to all pull theories of gravity. These theories differ from push theories in that the gravitational effect streams outward from the sun rather than inward from deep space. We can imagine, for example, a "graviton" rushing outward from the sun and striking the earth. When it does so, it exerts a tiny pull, rather than a push. Note, however, that due to the motion of the earth in its orbit, the direction of that tiny tug will *not* be exactly toward the sun. Instead, there will be a component of the tug that tends to speed up the earth in its orbit and, if the speed of the gravitons is equal to or less than the speed of light, the result will boost the earth up to its escape velocity in less than a thousand years, and hurl the earth out of the solar system. Once again, as Laplace calculated almost 200 years ago, gravity must propagate at many millions of times the speed of light, in order to account for the fact that the earth is still in its orbit. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >What is missed in that analysis, is the fact that the orientation of the >sun's location is additionally rotating. So you have an instantaneous >direction vector, but you additionally have a rotation of that vector. ***{Of course the vector rotates. Assuming the push theory, for example, the tangential force opposes the motion of the earth in its orbit. Since the earth moves in a circle around the sun, its velocity vector rotates with a period of one year, and thus any vector that consistently opposes that velocity also rotates with a period of one year. If the tangential force vector did not rotate, then it would accelerate the earth for half a year and decelerate it for half a year, and there would be no net deceleration or acceleration of the earth over a complete cycle. --Mitchell Jones}*** The >rotation component is never considered in the above analysis. ***{Irrelevant. All that is necessary is to recognize that the tangential gravitational component always opposes the direction of the earth's motion (in the case of the push theory), or always acts to speed up the earth's motion (in the case of the pull theory). It is this consistency of action that ensures that there is no compensation. The tangential gravitational component does not switch back and forth between speeding up the earth and slowing it down, thereby cancelling itself out. That's why the Laplace argument is so devastating and is why, if Einstein had uttered his nonsense in, say, 1820, he would have been hooted off the stage. The world needed a hundred years to forget what Laplace had proven, to create the climate of ignorance that was necessary to support Einstein's ideas. --Mitchell Jones}*** [snip] From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 9 10:10:44 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA03742; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 10:06:05 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 10:06:05 -0700 Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 10:07:17 -0700 Message-Id: <199809091707.KAA11849 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: Speed of Gravity? Resent-Message-ID: <"WvgSC1.0.Ow.zLhzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22201 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Thanks Ross, > >As usual, a very interesting explanation....but, I'm still curious >what your view on the velocity of gravity is? If we were able to >produce gravity waves in a laboratory, what would their propegation >rate be? Gravity waves are not what you are interested in. You are asking about aether compression waves. IMO, FTL ;-) I have some ideas on how to go about it and hope to include those with the funding, hopefully prior to the end of the year. If I launch a smoke ring into the air, it moves very slowly as it advances. Sound, OTOH, advances as a compression wave at 1100 ft/s. The vortex IS, a transverse wave, ie, photon. what you want are compression waves in the aether if you are after FTL signalling. A transverse wave on the ocean moves at a m/s or so. A compression wave in water moves at 1,500 m/s Gravity, even in the laboratory, is the interference pattern that results from the compression wave energy moving in all possible directions (remember QED?). That interference pattern results in a holographic, dynamic, distortion to spacetime. But that effect will propogate at c. It is more like the photonic wave energy in that you must learn about solitons in a dispersive medium. The wave energy that is the smoke ring expanded outward from the region of the smoke ring at 1,500 m/s, and so the rest of the atmosphere for distances very far away from what catches your eye, and the attention of your brain, have already received signals of the presence of the smoke ring. Those compression signals, in aether, move at FTL, though we have no way of knowing what the step up in velocity is, yet. It is in principle possible to send ftl signals using compression waves. But to understand this you need to begin to think of matter as being waves in an ocean instead of being particles in empty space. The former restricts what you can do. The latter allows your imagination to conclude anything you want. And principles like the "Uncertainty" principle give you confidence that it is OK to just assume any sort of thing you want. But working with an aether ocean universe, you do not have all of that latitude. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 9 10:26:02 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA12564; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 10:23:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 10:23:25 -0700 Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 13:21:54 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: [OFF TOPIC] Florman quote Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809091324_MC2-58DB-44E3 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"fc_7M3.0.843.Cchzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22202 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Here is a fine quote from a book I recommend. I love sentence in italics: "This is Bulgarians wanting washing machines." Our contemporary problem is distressingly obvious. We have too many people wanting too many things. This is not caused by technology; it is a consequence of the type of creature that man is. There are a few people holding back, like those who are willing to do without disposable bottles, a few people turning back, like the young men and women moving to the counterculture communes, and many people who have not gotten started because of crushing poverty and ignorance. But the vast majority of people in the world want to move forward, whatever the consequences. Not that they are lemmings. They are wary of revolution and anarchy. They are increasingly disturbed by crowding and pollution. Many of them recognize that "progress" is not necessarily taking them from worse to better. But whatever their caution and misgivings, they are pressing on with a determination that is awesome to behold. The newspapers report that the Bulgarian government, bowing to consumer discontent, is attempting to provide more and better washing machines. This is not "technique" run wild, or "the suave technocracy" exploiting the people. *This is Bulgarians wanting washing machines.* It is common knowledge that millions of underprivileged families want adequate food and housing. What is less commonly remarked is that after they have adequate food and housing they will want to be served at a fine restaurant and to have a weekend cottage by the sea. People want tickets to the Philharmonic and vacation trips abroad. They want fine china and silver dinner sets and handsome clothes. The illiterate want to learn how to read. Then they want education, and then more education, and then they want their sons and daughters to become doctors and lawyers. It is frightening to see so many millions of people wanting so much. It is almost like being present at the Oklahoma land rush, except that millions are involved instead of hundreds, and instead of land, the prize is everything that life has to offer. Now, at last, we can see what it is that motivates the antitechnologists. It is fear. They are terrified by the scene unfolding before their eyes. They see hordes of college graduates in New Delhi serving with frustration as government clerks while wanting to be senators or leaders of industry. They see blacks rioting in the ghettos for a share in American bourgeois pleasures and for status as members of the professions and the business community. . . . - S. C. Florman, "The Existential Pleasures of Engineering," (St. Martins Griffin, 1994), p. 76 - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 9 10:27:58 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA14056; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 10:26:12 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 10:26:12 -0700 Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 10:27:24 -0700 Message-Id: <199809091727.KAA14868 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: Speed of Gravity? Resent-Message-ID: <"6UoJu.0.RR3.pehzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22203 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Excellent description of the ultra mundane particles. It has been over 2 years since I read that one so the brush up was good. For the record, I do advocate a push theory of gravity, but not the kind where particles hitting matter are causing it. I don't work with particles. I work with waves, and the filtering of wave energy arriving from the deep universe that is frequency mismatched. If matter consists of local resonances in an ocean of dense, intense aether, where the mean free path of ultramundane particles (if we resort to particles at all), is shorter than E-35 meters, the Planck scale, then there are no particles flying through the earth as you described. the particles are so tiny and so numerous that they cannot even make it from one spacetime node to the next without colliding. In such a system, you can wind up with localized regions in that dense ocean that are resonating spherically. We can call such a region, a "particle" such as an electron. But it really isn't a particle at all. Rather, it is a dynamic geometry of waves. Those waves, would have to be dancing to the beat of a local drummer, namely, spacetime. Kelvin worked out the model for this sort of particles, and FitzGerald worked out the model for one such version of spacetime. I work with a different version of geometry for spacetime, and with the same geometry for particles as Kelvin used. Though I add to the numbers of geometries by using a group of 9 muon resonances to model the nucleons, 2 muons to model a pion, etc. Now, if spacetime locally is the power weighted sum of all wave energy incident at a location, then we must consider the wave energy coming from nearby resonances and from deep space. The waves coming from nearby resonances are what we call "fields". the net local "vortex sponge" version of spacetime leads us to a fundamental frequency of resonance. That frequency is the Planck frequency, E45 Hz. Wave energy coming from the distant universe, is frequency shifted due to doppler recession. Thus, local resonances will not be able to frequency lock to wave energy coming from the distant universe. Ergo, the only interaction that can take place is one of "interference" or "filtering". Thus, the local resonances are pushed away from the incident wave energy coming from the deep universe. You can understand this very easily by considering two ships on the ocean. They have a characteristic bobbing frequency that will be very low. So all of the waves hitting the exterior of their hulls are not capable of exciting a resonance in the bobbing of the ships. So if you have two such ships side by side, on the open ocean, sitting still in the water, the lapping of waves on the outsides of their hulls will be greater on the sides toward the open ocean than it will be on the sides in between them. Ergo, the two ships are pushed toward one another. An important point that is completely different from the ultra mundane particles, is that there is no net flow of water past the ships in this process. We are simply filtering out wave energy. Now we can call the deep space wave energy "noisy" because it is coming from a wide variety of doppler shifted frequencies. So it is like noise, or, ZPE as it is called today. This is why Hal Puthoff's approach to gravitation is, IMO, a good one to explain that one component of gravity. However, there are two components to gravity as we now know, and as the aether model demands. The second component results from mass to energy conversion, and the term is included in GR as the "cosmological constant". The only problem with using that term is that it implies that that thrust, is due to space itself from some magical property. All I contend, is that the cosmological constant component has sources that are easily identified. They are stars. Fusion, or more explicitly, all exothermic reactions are aether emissive. Therefore, all exothermic reactions push the rest of the universe away from the region of exothermy. Even a rock rolling down the hill is leading the the earth rock system being reduced in the amount of aether associated with that density build up in the local ocean. And you can see the effect of the flow of aether out of planets like Jupiter (Great Red Spot), and Neptune (great dark spot??). So, Le Sage contended that gravity was a push first and foremost. And he may have described one mechanism to accomplish that feat, but his description is not the only one possible. Filtering of wave energy incident from deep space is a second possible mechanism. A mechanism that has not been studied to my knowledge, except by me. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 9 10:48:40 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA26649; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 10:46:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 10:46:51 -0700 Message-ID: <35F6BF82.7E6A interlaced.net> Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 13:48:50 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: ozone emission from caduceus coil References: <35F69763.139B58C1 verisoft.com.tr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"tJH0F2.0.8W6.Ayhzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22204 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hamdi Ucar wrote: > > Hi all, > > If you remember my related posts on recent week, I described my coil setup which leads ozone emission. Still this experiment run on my bench and easily detectable ozone emission continue. I have several reason to think this emission is not due to simple ionization of air by high strength e-fields and voltage, because they are absent (apparently). > Hamdi, have you tried to observe all portions of your coil in a very dark room? - this to look for any tiny voltage peaks due to standing waves on your coil windings. Also, perhaps you could use fragments of a florescent light tube to search for local ultra-violet emission. Also, listen to the coil emission on a short-wave receiver where you can sweep frequencies widely separated from your oscillator frequency? Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 9 11:10:21 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA03094; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 11:07:56 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 11:07:56 -0700 From: Puthoff aol.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 14:06:21 EDT To: vortex-l eskimo.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Re: Speed of Gravity? Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 78 Resent-Message-ID: <"4WuMH1.0.Fm.yFizr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22205 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Ross, In a message dated 9/9/98 11:28:35 AM, you wrote: <> Where does the aether energy come from? An energy release above and beyond light, heat, particles? If an excess energy, where does it come from? If not an excess, doesn't light, heat and particles account for it all? Hal From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 9 11:23:39 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA08853; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 11:21:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 11:21:15 -0700 Message-ID: <35F6C637.4A10611C verisoft.com.tr> Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 21:17:27 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: ozone emission from caduceus coil References: <35F69763.139B58C1 verisoft.com.tr> <35F6BF82.7E6A@interlaced.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"xotMn2.0.DA2.QSizr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22206 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Francis J. Stenger wrote: > > Hamdi Ucar wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > If you remember my related posts on recent week, I described my coil setup which leads ozone emission. Still this experiment run on my bench and easily detectable ozone emission continue. I have several reason to think this emission is not due to simp le ionization of air by high strength e-fields and voltage, because they are absent (apparently). > > > > Hamdi, have you tried to observe all portions of your coil in a very > dark room? - this to look for any tiny voltage peaks due to standing > waves on your coil windings. Yes, I did it, but it was not very very dark. I will try it again. > Also, perhaps you could use fragments of > a florescent light tube to search for local ultra-violet emission. I did it also with the powder. no frorecence is observed. > Also, listen to the coil emission on a short-wave receiver where you can sweep frequencies widely separated from your oscillator frequency? I will try this. On my other experiments, different coils create hi-voltages (>100V) enough to lit florescent tube at 2-20 cm at distance and lit neon tubes at proximity. No ozone emission occurred in these cases. Do you know what is static E field strength (V/m) is required for the ionization. In my coil. wires are separated by 0.1mm (2 x enamel thickness), and I expect less then 10 V( I guess 2-3V) between adjacent wiring. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 9 11:31:26 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA13209; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 11:29:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 11:29:20 -0700 Message-ID: <35F6C7F8.A292301B verisoft.com.tr> Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 21:24:56 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex Subject: (Off topic) [Fwd: Scientists to Reveal Source of Jupiter's Rings] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------B6E8EE5D315E8B259A836E64" Resent-Message-ID: <"S9uAZ3.0.JE3._Zizr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22207 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. --------------B6E8EE5D315E8B259A836E64 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Will be quite interesting. hamdi ucar --------------B6E8EE5D315E8B259A836E64 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from [137.78.99.25] by rainbow.verisoft.com.tr (AIX 4.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA39416; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 07:36:19 +0400 Received: (from majordomo localhost) by www-onlab.jpl.nasa.gov (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA25726 for galileo-outgoing; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 13:27:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from baalke localhost) by www-onlab.jpl.nasa.gov (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA25721 for galileo-release; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 13:27:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Ron Baalke Message-Id: <199809082027.NAA25721 www-onlab.jpl.nasa.gov> Subject: Scientists to Reveal Source of Jupiter's Rings To: galileo-release www.jpl.nasa.gov Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 13:27:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: JPLNews jpl.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk Reply-To: domo jpl.nasa.gov N E W S A D V I S O R Y Sept. 8, 1998 A JOINT ANNOUNCEMENT FROM CORNELL AND THE JET PROPULSION LABORATORY, PASADENA, CALIF. Scientists to reveal source of Jupiter's rings ITHACA, N.Y. -- Astronomers analyzing data from NASA's Galileo spacecraft will announce they have solved a long-standing mystery, the origin of Jupiter's rings, at a news briefing on Tuesday, Sept. 15, at noon, EDT, at Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., in the ILR Conference Center. Los Angeles-area news media are invited to watch the briefing via video teleconference at JPL and ask questions over a live audio link. New Galileo images, including views of Jupiter's rings, will be available, along with a new Galileo video animation, both on the Internet and on NASA TV. Panelists will include Galileo imaging team leader Dr. Mike Belton of the National Optical Astronomical Observatories, Tucson, Ariz.; team members Dr. Joseph Burns and Dr. Joseph Veverka, both of Cornell; and imaging team affiliate Maureen Ockert-Bell, also of Cornell. The briefing will be carried live on the Internet. Reporters wishing to view the briefing online are asked to register before the conference on the web at http://www.news.cornell.edu/signup.html. Participants will be able to send their questions to the panel by e-mail. The Galileo spacecraft has been orbiting Jupiter and its moons for the past 2-1/2 years. It concluded its primary mission in December and is currently in the midst of a two-year extension, known as the Galileo Europa Mission. JPL manages Galileo for NASA's Office of Space Science, Washington, D.C. JPL is a division of the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif. Images and animation will be transmitted on NASA TV on Tuesday, Sept. 15, at noon, 3 p.m., 6 p.m., 9 p.m. and midnight (all times EDT). NASA TV is available through GE-2, transponder 9C at 85 degrees west longitude, vertical polarization, with a frequency of 3880 MHz and audio at 6.8 MHz. The new images will be released on the Internet at the following URLs: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo, http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov and http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/sept98/jupiter_rings.html. ---------- Contact: David Brand, Office: (607) 255-3651, Home: (607) 256-0849 deb27 cornell.edu JPL: Jane Platt (818) 354-0880 You are subscribed to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's galileo listserv. To unsubscribe, e-mail JPLNews jpl.nasa.gov . Leave the subject field blank, and type unsubscribe galileo in the body of the message. --------------B6E8EE5D315E8B259A836E64-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 9 12:12:43 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA26994; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 12:02:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 12:02:35 -0700 Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 12:03:46 -0700 Message-Id: <199809091903.MAA28395 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: (Hal), Energy / Aether was Re: Speed of Gravity? Resent-Message-ID: <"HUVER3.0.db6.A3jzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22208 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Greetings Hal; >In a message dated 9/9/98 11:28:35 AM, you wrote: > ><> > >Where does the aether energy come from? In today's physics, you are accustomed to tracking "energy". So your inclination is always to ask where the energy comes from. Whether it is aether energy, gravitational energy, chemical energy, whatever, energy is what is first and foremost in your mind. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that conservation of energy is wrong. I am just saying that it misses an important aspect of how matter interacts with spacetime. To be direct, the answer to your question is, the momentum imparted to the aether originates back to the big bang. And exothermy is a continuation of the boiling process we call inflation in cosmology. The difference is, now that there is an established structure of standing wave energy (spacetime) in the ocean of aether, the remaining high density regions that are still vaporizing (particles), can only vaporize by changing their geometries (fusion, etc). Think of "particles" as localized aether resonances that are at high pressure in the ocean of aether. So "empty space" is at low pressure, and the interior region of a "particle" as you head into the interior of the particle to the Planck scale goes up to high density high pressure (I think from analysis of e, muon, tauon, that the energy at the interior of an electron resonance attains E111 eV/m^3 at the centermost dot at E-35 meters diameter. At that diameter, the compression is so extreme that the aether is alternating from what we may call a condensate, to a vapor. The condensate showing up at particle centers, and in the cores of black holes too. Ergo, that condensate is what was at the center of the black hole that gave birth to the big bang, and the boiling of that condensate is what caused inflation, and the last remaining droplets that are buzzing and trapped in the acoustic nodes, are what we call particles. See the circularity? An energy release above and beyond >light, heat, particles? If an excess energy, where does it come from? If not >an excess, doesn't light, heat and particles account for it all? Yes, there is an excess energy, and no, light heat and particles do not account for it all. They only account for half. The other half is the energy imparted to the rest of the ocean we call empty space. Exothermy, is a process of vaporization of localized high density regions of aether we call particles. Thus, exothermy pushes the rest of the universe away, and so the other half of the action is imparted to the rest of the universe. But it is communicated via compression wave energy emitted from the region of the fusion reaction. So, rather than mass being converted into energy, what you really have is aether being emitted, and the resonance recoiling in response. IOW, action reaction is re-instated in this model. But you must consider the reaction of the universe, to the action imparted to the particles you are used to tracking. When you understand this, then it is obvious that outside of stars, the reaction thrust IS, the cosmological component of gravitation. But rather than truly being a property of empty space, that component has sources, stars. And so we should be able to identify a variety of mysterious phenomena that astro physicists are faced with which for some reason defy solution. Their names are: Dark matter T-tauri jets Flare stars coronal mass ejections flares blinkers planetary nebulae FLIERs Earths Incessant 5 minute Free Oscillations Venus' 3.8 day atmospheric oscillations and many many more. It is only when you learn to make a distinction between mass and energy that these things are going to become obvious to you. E is not equivalent to, equal to, or anything like, m E is equal to m, moving at c, and thus KE is given by mc^2/2. For fusion reactions, the emissions from one of the resonances (particles) is shot toward the other and so you get double the KE you would expect from a rocket. This is like you get double the reaction thrust from a Pelton wheel as you do from a simple paddle wheel due to the momentum reversal. Think of particles like tiny CO2 cartridge powered rockets, except inside is aether and not CO2. When you have DD fusion to He3 n, the 3 cartridges are smashed into one another and cannot confine as much of the aether, and so some of it is shot out. The resulting nuclei accelerate away from the aether emission, and, that local region of the universe has a new patch of aether emitted out into it that drives the expansion of the universe away from that location, driving the Hubble flow. For a star, this means that when the fusion reactions turn on, there should be a sudden change to the gravitational potential around the exterior of the star. The new emission of aether component turns on the "cosmological constant" term in GR locally, as aether begins to pour out of the star via the path(s) of least resistance. Ergo, the T-tauri jets and FLIERs. (the axis is the first path of least resistance, and it is still that way for our sun and that is why the high speed component of the solar wind exits the polar regions at 800 km/s vs 400 km/s at the equator.) Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 9 12:13:53 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA30088; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 12:08:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 12:08:35 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980909150933.00dba380 inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney inforamp.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 15:09:33 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: Speed of Gravity? In-Reply-To: <199809091707.KAA11849 Au.oro.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"R35er1.0.pL7.m8jzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22209 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:07 AM 09/09/98 -0700, Ross wrote: >Those compression signals, in aether, move at FTL, though we have no way of >knowing what the step up in velocity is, yet. It is in principle possible >to send ftl signals using compression waves. Ross, I ponder the type of experimental setup to reveal FTL, so I have some questions and even some supposes: Is "light pressure" composed of longitudinal compression signals? IOW, are these "compression waves" the momentum component of EM? They could be screened with a shutter. The shutter would allow pulses of microwave or laser EM to pass through the slots at light speed, but not the FTL compression wave pulses. Or vice-versa, the shutter could be adjusted to allow the high speed compression wave pulses to pass, and totally screen the slower EM component. Transmission of high power pulses of EM energy is probably necessary to non-ambiguously facilitate detection of the compression signal. Detection of only these pulsed FTL compression waves using a sensitive pulse-resonant piezo detector may be possible. What do you think? Colin Quinney (Perpetual Optimist) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 9 12:31:29 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA12191; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 12:29:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 12:29:48 -0700 Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 15:26:41 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: [OFF TOPIC] A little more from Florman Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809091529_MC2-58E1-68A2 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"c1uYa.0.M-2.hSjzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22210 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex This paragraph from the next page is funny too: The antitechnologists are frightened; they counsel halt and retreat. They tell the people that Satan (technology) is leading them astray, but the people have heard that story before. They will not stand still for vague promises of a psychic contentment that is to follow in the wake of voluntary temperance. Desperately the antitechnologists try to sell their vision of the ideal society, a sort of Viennese operetta scene, with the good and gentle populace dancing around the Maypole while the important personages (presumably including the antitechnologists) look on benevolently. But man has not come this far through the evolutionary furnace to settle for a bucolic idyll. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 9 12:40:40 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA16580; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 12:39:01 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 12:39:01 -0700 Message-ID: <35F6CC80.213C earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 13:44:16 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com, storms2@ix.netcom.com Subject: Blue: Murray: Storms visit 9.9.98 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"oU6ya2.0.z24.Kbjzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22211 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Received: from pilot008.cl.msu.edu (pilot008.cl.msu.edu [35.9.5.108]) by cuckoo.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA07992 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 08:21:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from blue localhost) by pilot008.cl.msu.edu (8.9.0/8.9.0) id LAA51068 for rmforall earthlink.net; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 11:21:03 -0400 Message-Id: <199809091521.LAA51068 pilot008.cl.msu.edu> Subject: Re: Murray: visited Ed Storms, "Cold Fusion Revisited" 9.3.98 To: rmforall earthlink.net Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 11:21:03 -0400 (EDT) From: "Richard A Blue" In-Reply-To: <35EEA44F.590E earthlink.net> from "Rich Murray" at Sep 3, 98 09:14:39 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text/plain > > Sept. 3, 1998 > > Edmund Storms, 2140 Paseo Ponderosa, Santa Fe, NM 87501-6319, > 505-988-3673 storms2 ix.netcom.com > > If he continues to get about a 50 % excess heat success rate with his > thin Pd film cathodes, this could be a feasible research strategy. He > says that the current density has to be >= .25 A/cm2, and the ~ 15 V > voltage has to be adjusted to load the cathode and then trigger heat > bursts. A 10 cm2 cathode would need about 400 W. > > quotes. > > He says about the Arata & Zhang cell, which in 1997 was claimed in long, > detailed summary papers to produce about 20% excess heat for months with > six out of six cathodes: "Because the work has been done with great > care, interest in the results is growing. Several attempts in Japan to > duplicte the results have failed because, according to Prof. Arata, the > proper protocols were not followed. Additional efforts are underway in > the U.S." This is the first I've heard about attempts to replicate what > seems to be a simple, robust, sure-fire experiment-- does anyone have > any details? > > About the Cincinnati Group and CETI (Patterson) cells for radioactive > remediation via transmutation, he says: "A number of organizations [57] > are proposing to use this effect to quickly convert radioactive isotopes > to stable ones. These claims are still uncertain and are being actively > pursued using a variety of methods and chemical environments." > > About the Miley (CETI, Patterson) transmutation in thin film Ni in H2O, > "While most questions about the analytical methods have been answered, > the nature of the nuclear process is still very much in doubt." > > About the Mizuno, Ohmori, Enyo, et al transmutation claims, "Abnormal > isotopic ratios resulting from formation of metal hydride molecules, > which distort SIMS measurements, or because of isotopic separation > caused by electromigration may occur but are difficult to justify in all > cases." > > About Stringham and George's ultrasonic cavitation cells with pure D2O, > "Unfortunately, details of the process and the results are not available > to the public although a general description can be found in Infinite > Energy Magazine. [71] This is one of the few methods having high > reproducibility and producing significant amounts of energy and nuclear > products. People interested in the method can obtain more information > by contacting the inventors." [rgeorge hooked.net] > I think your chat with Ed Storms reveals much of what is wrong with the Cold Fusion debate, as it has been presented by Storms and other advocates. As many of the exchanges in this forum and elsewhere have demonstrated, the assorted claims put forth in evidence for Cold Fusion are not as solid as Ed Storms suggests. There have been numerous flaws described in some detail in the "analytic techniques" employed in much of this research. Ed Storms ought to acknowledge some of the failures if he is to have any credibility for assessing the successes, should there be any. Clearly, we can debate endlessly such questions as to whether the Storms calorimeter does or does not achieve some specified level of precision reliably. So let's move on to an issue that is rather universally supported by all experimental evidence -- from believers and nonbelievers alike. That is the issue of the nuclear reaction process assumed to be fueling all these calorimeters that, according to Storms, indicate "excess heat." I should hope that Ed Storms will agree with me that clear and convincing evidence for a specific nuclear reaciton process should be important goal for cold fusion research. My question is, "Where is the direct evidence for any nuclear reaction process capable of the release of energy at the rates claimed by Ed Storms?" It is not just that the evidence for nuclear reactions is lacking. The fact is that there is a tremendous body of experimental evidence that indicates that no such reactions are occurring! Yet Storms and the CF advocates pretend that they need not consider such evidence against cold fusion when they present their case. Of course scientific journals with peer review reject what Storms submits. That is not a mark against said journal. Calorimetry alone is not going to make the case for cold fusion. We don't need any more demonstrations of the fact that Storms and others can't get their calorimeters to balance properly. Anyone, if they are determined to do so, can screw up the calorimetry. It proves nothing to demonstrate that over and over again. So what reaction does Ed Storms propose to account for his calorimetric results? Is he even willing to discuss such a question? Have I been missing something, or am I correct in my sense that CETI, George Miley, and the infamous kits that were supposed to prove "massive transmutations" are now a thing of the past -- quite thoroughly discredited. So why doesn't Ed Storms X that one off his list of cold fusion successes? Dick Blue From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 9 13:02:22 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA23699; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 12:57:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 12:57:18 -0700 From: Puthoff aol.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 15:57:09 EDT To: vortex-l eskimo.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: (Hal), Energy / Aether was Re: Speed of Gravity? Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 78 Resent-Message-ID: <"MGhkv3.0.7o5.Tsjzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22212 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: <> (snip) Thanks Ross, a very clear exposition. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 9 14:21:11 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA18441; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 14:17:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 14:17:15 -0700 Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 14:18:21 -0700 Message-Id: <199809092118.OAA13813 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: (Hal), Energy / Aether was Re: Speed of Gravity? Resent-Message-ID: <"-tQZ-1.0.1W4.R1lzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22213 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ><aether originates back to the big bang. And exothermy is a continuation of >the boiling process we call inflation in cosmology. >> > >(snip) > >Thanks Ross, a very clear exposition. Hal, you're welcome. A very interesting realization is that the motion I study (like Kelvin's pulsating spheres) for electron consists of a spherical resonance in a compressible aether with a centermost sphere at E-35 m, and f = E45 Hz, ie Planck scale resonances. But, the aether must go through a change of state, ie vapor to condensate, in the innermost region. That can be thought of like in radiation build up in reactor walls, so there are precidents. But the geometry of resonance for the universe must be the identical geometry! This realization, leads me to conclude that we should be able to detect the "magnetic moment" of the electron, in the motions of mass in our universe on cosmological scales. ie, the fusion of mass to energy in our universe, is the same process at a different size scale as the aether condensation vaporization I am speaking about at the innermost region of an electron. The fact that recent observations (not accepted or verified yet, and they are contested) that there is a preferred direction may imply that they are seeing the residual signature of what we call the magnetic moment of the electron in our universe. When we look out with our telescopes, we may be equally looking at what is going on at scales far smaller than we could dream of observing in the internal structure of electrons, the fundamental building block of sub atomic particles in my aether model. (I use electron, muon, tauon as the three fundamental spherical resonances of three integer amplitudes. Then, pion is a double muon. Proton and neutron are composed of 9 muons in 3 groups of 3. etc) Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 9 15:35:58 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA23404; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 15:34:31 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 15:34:31 -0700 Message-ID: <009101bddc41$3925b780$958f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Subject: Home Page (http://www.theoryofeverything.com/) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 16:28:27 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01BDDC0E.E02C62A0" 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: <"GyzVZ.0.Wj5.s9mzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22214 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_0006_01BDDC0E.E02C62A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here it is, at last? http://www.theoryofeverything.com/ ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BDDC0E.E02C62A0 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Home Page.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Home Page.url" [InternetShortcut] URL=http://www.theoryofeverything.com/ Modified=E05A5B0541DCBD0175 ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BDDC0E.E02C62A0-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 9 16:13:20 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA04212; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 16:11:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 16:11:51 -0700 Message-ID: <35F70A52.3B0F73C8 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 02:08:02 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Home Page (http://www.theoryofeverything.com/) References: <009101bddc41$3925b780$958f85ce default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"zOGcd1.0.b11.rimzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22215 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frederick J Sparber wrote: > > Here it is, at last? > > http://www.theoryofeverything.com/ > Great! I downloaded the whole site with Webdownload 2.2e (http://www.saransk.sitek.net/pages/arny/wd.htm) within minutes. This book is wonderful, not blah blah. Thanks Frederick. hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 9 17:59:29 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA21961; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 17:52:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 17:52:24 -0700 Message-ID: <35F740F5.791 fc.net> Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 20:01:09 -0700 From: John Fields Organization: Austin Instruments, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; U; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com CC: jfields fc.net Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT & LOCATION OF DEMONSTRATION! References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"BaDcw1.0.FM5.6Bozr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22216 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Evan Soule wrote: > > >At 09:53 PM 9/6/98 -0600, you wrote: > > > > I guess Phoenix, like Scottsdale, just happens > >>to be a bit closer to Sun City Grand. > >> > >>Ain't geography a hoot! > >> > >>Evan > >> > > > >Evan, I have been watching the Arizona Republic (the primary newspaper for > >this area) for some kind of publicity and have not seen any. Possibly I > >have missed it. Is there going to be any local publicity for this event? > > > >Have you arranged for any news coverage of your demo by the local TV stations? > > > >--Lynn > > The local media will be notified. > > Evan -- Ah, Evan, we meet again, albeit electronically! I hope I'll finally get to meet you in person in Phoenix, and although we might not be "fishin buddies", we might quaff a beer or two and talk about whether 1+1>1, no? Chair... (Or as we say in Spanish, "Silla") -- John Fields, Austin Instruments, Inc. El Presidente Research, Design, and Development "I speak for the company" Austin, Republic of Texas From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 9 19:23:22 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA19163; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 19:09:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 19:09:24 -0700 Message-ID: <35F73549.40E7 interlaced.net> Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 22:11:21 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: ozone emission from caduceus coil References: <35F69763.139B58C1 verisoft.com.tr> <35F6BF82.7E6A@interlaced.net> <35F6C637.4A10611C@verisoft.com.tr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"l93SQ2.0.Ih4.IJpzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22217 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hamdi Ucar wrote: > > On my other experiments, different coils create hi-voltages (>100V) enough to lit florescent tube at 2-20 cm at distance and lit neon tubes at proximity. No ozone emission occurred in these cases. > > Do you know what is static E field strength (V/m) is required for the ionization. In my coil. wires are separated by 0.1mm (2 x enamel thickness), and I expect less then 10 V( I guess 2-3V) between adjacent wiring. > Hamdi, in my limited experience, I've never noticed ionization at less than a few thousand volts - and perhaps off very sharp points. Perhaps the complex geometry of the coil forms a series-resonant region with some of the inter-winding capacitance resonating with some of the coil inductance. As I recall, in series resonance, the voltage across the capacitor or across the inductor can rise far above the voltage of the source oscillator. Such voltages may not be detected at the input of the coil. I am ignorant of any effects other than electric field that could be generating the ozone! In other words, in "radio talk", perhaps you have set up, with a modest voltage (your oscillator voltage), a current-driven standing wave on the coil? I'm out of ideas! Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 9 19:28:56 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA19296; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 19:09:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 19:09:55 -0700 Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 20:11:32 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Speed of Gravity? In-Reply-To: <199809091727.KAA14868 Au.oro.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"uODHc.0.Jj4.oJpzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22218 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 9 Sep 1998, Ross Tessien wrote: [snip most] So, Le Sage contended that gravity was a push first and foremost. And he may have described one mechanism to accomplish that feat, but his description is not the only one possible. Filtering of wave energy incident from deep space is a second possible mechanism. A mechanism that has not been studied to my knowledge, except by me. Ross Tessien -------------------- Hi Ross, As a follower of your posts (and looking foward to book release:), Is "Filtering" of wave energy here more correct then say channeling, funneling or vortexally concentrating wave energy? Just thinking about the "S" shape aetheric turbo(?) &/ why would one want to filter incoming first. ?? best to you & yours -=se=- steve (wave alignment? :) ekwall From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 9 19:35:54 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA26436; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 19:32:43 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 19:32:43 -0700 Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 19:33:54 -0700 From: Lynn Kurtz Subject: Re: Curiosity In-reply-to: X-Sender: kurtz imap2.asu.edu (Unverified) To: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <199809100233.TAA22704 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: <"3T8QK2.0.yS6.Afpzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22219 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Dear Vortexians I am copying this to the vortex list because that is where the discussion originated and I consider it highly inappropriate to receive insulting and threatening emails from such as Evan Soule while he maintains a public stance which is quite different. Below is the text of the email I received form Mr. Soule and my reply to it. All lines beginning with > were in the email. At 11:19 AM 9/9/98 -0600, you wrote: >From: Lynn Kurtz >Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT & LOCATION OF DEMONSTRATION! > >>At 08:07 PM 9/5/98 -0600, you wrote: >> >>>***ANNOUNCEMENT & LOCATION OF DEMONSTRATION!*** >>> >>> NEWMAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION >>************** >>> >>> Date: ***** SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1998 ****** >>> Time: 2:00PM (Pacific Time) >>>Place: PHOENIX, ARIZONA >>> >> >>> SONORAN PLAZA (in the Sonoran Plaza Ballroom) >>> 19726 N. Remington Drive, Sun City Grand >>> West Phoenix, Arizona >> >>Well, that lets me out. I would interrupt my usual Sunday activities if the >>event was actually in Phoenix. There is no such thing as "West Phoenix". >>Sun City is not Phoenix. It is a retirement community a good 45 min to 1 >>hour drive from Scottsdale. I hope the demo itself is not as misleading as >>the location announcement. >> >>I think they could have found a location actually in Phoenix if they wanted >>to. Phoenix is a hi-tech area. They could stir up a lot of interest if they >>tried. >> >>Sorry everyone, but I have lost interest in this one. >> >>--Lynn > >Dear Lynn, > >Well, I have to admit, "you are indeed a _bundle_ of curiosity." There are >individuals flying in from all over the United States for Joseph Newman's >demonstration, and a "45 minute to 1 hour drive" is 'inconvenient' for you. > >Elizabeth City is about an hour's drive from Kitty Hawk. Had you been >living in Elizabeth City in 1903, I'd certainly be the first to appreciate >how 'inconvenient' it would be for you to suspend your 'usual Thursday >activities' and travel to see the First Flight. The nerve and >insensitivity of the Wright Brothers to attempt a First Flight on a >_weekday_! If they had demonstrated any shred of sensitivity for their >fellow man/woman they would at least have held their First Flight on the >_weekend_. > >Of course, we also have the question: "Is Kill Devil Hills _really_ part of >Kitty Hawk? Or is it a separate community?" For anyone to state or imply >that the First Flight occurred at Kitty Hawk could be VERY misleading. > >At least you have the perspicuity to focus on the essentials. > >Sincerely, > >Evan > >P.S. Actually, prior to your above comments, I was sincerely looking >forward to the opportunity to meet you -- based in large measure upon your >recommendation to me by Gene Mallove as his unofficial on-site >observer/reporter. Apparently his positive opinion of you is misplaced. >Based upon your above petty and negative comments, you certainly do NOT >need to worry about missing your usual SATURDAY activities (as well as your >"usual Sunday activities"): were I to know that you WERE attempting to >attend Joseph Newman's demonstration of his technology, I would endeavor to >persuade Joseph Newman to have you removed from the premises. > Listen up, you jerk. I do not want any email from you. If you have anything to say to me post it in the discussion group where this started. I don't owe you anything. I don't need your advice or opinion on what to do with my time. I already acknowledged, as you well know, my mistake about typing SUNDAY instead of SATURDAY. What is your problem anyway? Are you afraid that since I have decided not to show up that there won't be anyone there? Given the lack of local publicity and the track record of the Newman Machine, that wouldn't surprise me. --Lynn From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 9 21:19:15 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA07415; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 21:16:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 21:16:03 -0700 Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 21:17:16 -0700 Message-Id: <199809100417.VAA06353 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: Speed of Gravity? Resent-Message-ID: <"hjB0g3.0.Tp1.2Arzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22220 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >On Wed, 9 Sep 1998, Ross Tessien wrote: >[snip most] > So, Le Sage contended that gravity was a push first and foremost. And he > may have described one mechanism to accomplish that feat, but his > description is not the only one possible. Filtering of wave energy incident > from deep space is a second possible mechanism. A mechanism that has not > been studied to my knowledge, except by me. > > Ross Tessien >-------------------- >Hi Ross, > > As a follower of your posts (and looking foward to book release:), Is >"Filtering" of wave energy here more correct then say channeling, >funneling or vortexally concentrating wave energy? > Just thinking about the "S" shape aetheric turbo(?) &/ why would one >want to filter incoming first. ?? > Filtering implies that wave energy of some sort is being removed from the thicket of waves. The wave energy that is being removed must then some how be explained to be returned back into the ocean, or you have failed to conserve energy. I demand conservation of energy, momentum, and mass. Mass, being the "amount of aether" that went into or out of a control volume. Whereas "mass" today, is believed to be the amount of that property associated with the particles that went into or out of a control volume. When you only consider the mass associated with the particles, you are missing the amount of mass associated with what you think of as empty space. Ergo, you are missing the fact that the origin of the "cosmological constant" term in GR is due to mass to energy conversion, and so you don't expect all of the accelerations we observe outside of stars. So, the filtering means, that I have wave energy heading into some region with a frequency of waves that does not match the local resonant frequencies. And so that wave energy becomes time delayed in the innermost regions of the resonances, ie electron, and then it is re-emitted again in cadence with the beat of local spacetime. If you have studied a run away feed back loop, that is sort of the process. ie, the convergent flow of aether into a spherical resonance will not exit again until the timing of the particles resonance allows the next "waves" to head back out. Those waves, ARE, the "fields" surrounding the "particles". The other forces are due to the timings of the wave energy. ie, the phase angle. Gravity, is due to the filtering of waves that are not frequency matched. Natural oscillators do not resonate to frequencies they are not tuned to. So they cannot resonate to that energy because it isn't well enough organized. You have to realize that you have galaxies out there at a Z shift of 0.1, 0.3, 0.8, 2, 3, 5 etc. ie, you have waves coming from distant galaxies at all possible red shifts. But you only have a lot of matter nearby resonating at our local spacetime frequency, E45 Hz. So that is the frequency of local matter oscillations all around the universe. But by the time that wave energy gets here from somewhere far away, it is red (freq) shifted. When you say "channel, funnel, "etc, you are implying the ability to reflect some of the wave energy. That may be what happened in the Tampere experiment. If you reflect some of the wave energy coming from above, you would push the mass upward and reduce it's apparent mass. That is like a turbine. As for the S shaped ideas, I see no validity in them at this time. They do not possess matter in them capable of organized reflection. Those devices are IMO, sort of like trying to get a helicopter off the ground when it has round pipes for blads. It won't fly, and the blades will just flutter in their own wakes like the ripples on a flag. You need different designs at the atomic level if you want a flying saucer turbine. But don't despair. As crazy as it sounds even for me, I am convinced that we live in 1998 at about the identical number of years ahead of first space flight, as we did ahead of first air flight in 1898. So it may well be that we learn that these things are real within a decade. I expect to begin research within 6 months on this subject, and with less time on energy. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 9 23:12:35 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA05455; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 23:04:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 23:04:51 -0700 X-Sender: josephnewman earthlink.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 01:14:44 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Curiosity Resent-Message-ID: <"7wvyG3.0.9L1.2mszr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22221 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Mr. Kurtz, I was curious to see if you would post in keeping with the original instructions of the List. My post below to you was a private post in accordance with such instructions. Predictably you choose to make it a public matter --- which is not surprising considering the tone of your original public post concerning this subject. While I have answered your letter below, I will send it as a private post. Anyone wishing to receive a copy of my response is welcome to email me and I will forward it to their attention, privately. Sincerely, Evan Soule' >Dear Vortexians > >I am copying this to the vortex list because that is where the discussion >originated and I consider it highly inappropriate to receive insulting and >threatening emails from such as Evan Soule while he maintains a public >stance which is quite different. Below is the text of the email I received >form Mr. Soule' and my reply to it. All lines beginning with > were in the >email. > > > >At 11:19 AM 9/9/98 -0600, you wrote: >>From: Lynn Kurtz >>Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT & LOCATION OF DEMONSTRATION! >> >>>At 08:07 PM 9/5/98 -0600, you wrote: >>> >>>>***ANNOUNCEMENT & LOCATION OF DEMONSTRATION!*** >>>> >>>> NEWMAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION >>>************** >>>> >>>> Date: ***** SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1998 ****** >>>> Time: 2:00PM (Pacific Time) >>>>Place: PHOENIX, ARIZONA >>>> >>> >>>> SONORAN PLAZA (in the Sonoran Plaza Ballroom) >>>> 19726 N. Remington Drive, Sun City Grand >>>> West Phoenix, Arizona >>> >>>Well, that lets me out. I would interrupt my usual Sunday activities if the >>>event was actually in Phoenix. There is no such thing as "West Phoenix". >>>Sun City is not Phoenix. It is a retirement community a good 45 min to 1 >>>hour drive from Scottsdale. I hope the demo itself is not as misleading as >>>the location announcement. >>> >>>I think they could have found a location actually in Phoenix if they wanted >>>to. Phoenix is a hi-tech area. They could stir up a lot of interest if they >>>tried. >>> >>>Sorry everyone, but I have lost interest in this one. >>> >>>--Lynn >> >>Dear Lynn, >> >>Well, I have to admit, "you are indeed a _bundle_ of curiosity." There are >>individuals flying in from all over the United States for Joseph Newman's >>demonstration, and a "45 minute to 1 hour drive" is 'inconvenient' for you. >> >>Elizabeth City is about an hour's drive from Kitty Hawk. Had you been >>living in Elizabeth City in 1903, I'd certainly be the first to appreciate >>how 'inconvenient' it would be for you to suspend your 'usual Thursday >>activities' and travel to see the First Flight. The nerve and >>insensitivity of the Wright Brothers to attempt a First Flight on a >>_weekday_! If they had demonstrated any shred of sensitivity for their >>fellow man/woman they would at least have held their First Flight on the >>_weekend_. >> >>Of course, we also have the question: "Is Kill Devil Hills _really_ part of >>Kitty Hawk? Or is it a separate community?" For anyone to state or imply >>that the First Flight occurred at Kitty Hawk could be VERY misleading. >> >>At least you have the perspicuity to focus on the essentials. >> >>Sincerely, >> >>Evan >> >>P.S. Actually, prior to your above comments, I was sincerely looking >>forward to the opportunity to meet you -- based in large measure upon your >>recommendation to me by Gene Mallove as his unofficial on-site >>observer/reporter. Apparently his positive opinion of you is misplaced. >>Based upon your above petty and negative comments, you certainly do NOT >>need to worry about missing your usual SATURDAY activities (as well as your >>"usual Sunday activities"): were I to know that you WERE attempting to >>attend Joseph Newman's demonstration of his technology, I would endeavor to >>persuade Joseph Newman to have you removed from the premises. >> > >Listen up, you jerk. I do not want any email from you. If you have anything >to say to me post it in the discussion group where this started. > >I don't owe you anything. I don't need your advice or opinion on what to do >with my time. I already acknowledged, as you well know, my mistake about >typing SUNDAY instead of SATURDAY. What is your problem anyway? Are you >afraid that since I have decided not to show up that there won't be anyone >there? Given the lack of local publicity and the track record of the Newman >Machine, that wouldn't surprise me. > >--Lynn From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 10 01:40:10 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA01330; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 01:38:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 01:38:55 -0700 Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 01:41:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Ostrowski X-Sender: jimostr mailserv1 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Curiosity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"iWTnT3.0.bK.U0vzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22222 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 10 Sep 1998, Evan Soule wrote: > Anyone wishing to receive > a copy of my response is welcome to email me and I will forward it to their > attention, privately. > > Sincerely, > > Evan Soule' > Dear Evan, I must say I enjoyed your response to Lynn Kurtz' backpedaling and excuse making backing away from the offer to attend the demo and report to vortex. Please , cc mail me a copy of your responses. You're cool. Jim Ostrowski Lynn Kurtz wrote: > >Listen up, you jerk. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 10 03:19:23 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA17847; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 03:07:31 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 03:07:31 -0700 Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 11:06:45 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: re: TEC, 'laser' in wire Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Remi Cornwall Resent-Message-ID: <"8ATNv.0.nM4.YJwzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22223 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Tim, I think all the laser talk of mine is bollocks. I just want to know how to calculate a few things which could explain why:- . The excitation frequency and the mark space ratio of the pulse (how long it needs to be on for in the period) . The surge current, maybe its profile or some means of approximating it as a pulse. We know the voltage, the pd across the wire. We can work out the power and then work You explaination then might shed light on how to make it better. I am puzzled why the effect should get better in long lines - the more resistive, the the effect. Confused, Remi. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 10 03:35:35 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA22436; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 03:34:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 03:34:18 -0700 Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 04:35:55 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: jfields fc.net Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT & LOCATION OF DEMONSTRATION! In-Reply-To: <35F740F5.791 fc.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"0BXTx3.0.PU5.giwzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22224 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 9 Sep 1998, John Fields wrote: Evan wrote: > > I guess Phoenix, like Scottsdale, just happens > >>to be a bit closer to Sun City Grand. > >>Ain't geography a hoot! > >>Evan > >Evan, I have been watching the Arizona Republic (the primary newspaper for > >this area) for some kind of publicity and have not seen any. Possibly I > >have missed it. Is there going to be any local publicity for this event? > >Have you arranged for any news coverage of your demo by the local TV stations? > >--Lynn > The local media will be notified. <--NOTED! > Evan -- Ah, Evan, we meet again, albeit electronically! I hope I'll finally get to meet you in person in Phoenix, and although we might not be "fishin buddies", we might quaff a beer or two and talk about whether 1+1>1, no? Chair... (Or as we say in Spanish, "Silla") -- John Fields, Austin Instruments, Inc. El Presidente Research, Design, and Development "I speak for the company" Austin, Republic of Texas ------------------------- Hi DUDES,! :) If I pop over, may I BUY your drinks? (recorder *ON*) Is this ~old~ or "NEW" grounds to cover? -=se=- steve (close as denver) ekwall round ONE* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 10 06:44:06 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA14915; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 06:42:43 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 06:42:43 -0700 Comments: ( Received on ftpbox.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com ) Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com Message-ID: <35F7D795.3AACAD4B css.mot.com> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 08:43:49 -0500 From: John Steck Organization: Motorola PCS - Rapid Tooling Applications X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Curiosity References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"XXUAj2.0.ze3.ITzzr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22225 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jim Ostrowski wrote: > I must say I enjoyed your response to Lynn Kurtz' backpedaling and excuse > making backing away from the offer to attend the demo and report to > vortex. ...... once again the phoenix rises from the 'flames'. > You're cool. What the hell is this high school? Grrrr... sorry, a little grumpy this morning. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John E. Steck Senior Mechanical Engineer Rapid Tooling Applications Motorola, Libertyville, IL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 10 07:31:01 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA31092; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 07:21:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 07:21:18 -0700 Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 07:24:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Ostrowski X-Sender: jimostr mailserv1 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Curiosity In-Reply-To: <35F7D795.3AACAD4B css.mot.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"xYtGQ3.0.hb7.T1-zr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22226 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 10 Sep 1998, John Steck wrote: > Jim Ostrowski wrote: > > > You're cool. > > What the hell is this high school? 'ey, ...dude! > > Grrrr... sorry, a little grumpy this morning. > chill, man ! ;^) JO From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 10 07:41:37 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA05801; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 07:40:05 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 07:40:05 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 09:49:59 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Copy of Letter Received Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id HAA05759 Resent-Message-ID: <"jrG4q1.0.PQ1.4J-zr" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22227 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: INFINITE ENERGY Magazine Cold Fusion Technology, Inc. P.O. Box 2816 Concord, New Hampshire 03302-2816, USA Phone: 603-228-4516, Fax: 603-224-5975 editor infinite-energy.com http://www.infinite-energy.com September 10, 1998 Milton Everett 15108 W. Via Manana Sun City West, AZ 85375 Dear Mr. Everett: It was delightful speaking with you last evening. I am thankful that Evan Soulé put me in touch with you. I am happy that you will be writing up a report for Infinite Energy of your observations of the forthcoming tests of the Newman motor in Arizona. What is wanted is a factual presentation with as much data as possible. You can also write about Newman's comments and audience composition, response, etc., but the central core of the article MUST be about what equipment was used, how it was used, what numbers were obtained, etc -indicating some conclusion one way or another about whether an anomalous production of energy occurred. If this demonstration or other testing of Newman's latest embodiment of his technology is promising, I would then make the strong suggestion -which you seemed very receptive to - of having Joe Newman and you bring the equipment to our laboratory here in Bow, NH, where we will further rigorously confirm (or reject) the results. I am intensely eager to get to the bottom of the truth about Joe Newman's machine. If we become convinced here that his machine is over-unity, nothing will stop us from a forceful defense of his technology. But be aware: We are not interested in defending or rejecting anyone's theories. We are ONLY interested in operational results and commercialization. We'll let the theorists and Joe battle on about theories. Very best wishes, Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D. 9/10/98 Dear Gene, Thanks for the follow-up and copy of the letter to Milton Everett. Best wishes, Evan Soule' From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 10 10:36:29 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA02955; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 10:33:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 10:33:29 -0700 Message-Id: <199809101733.MAA03557 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 12:33:23 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: Curiosity Resent-Message-ID: <"zx1kQ2.0._j.fr0-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22228 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Dear Mr. Kurtz, > >I was curious to see if you would post in keeping with the original >instructions of the List. My post below to you was a private post in >accordance with such instructions. Predictably you choose to make it a >public matter --- which is not surprising considering the tone of your >original public post concerning this subject. While I have answered your >letter below, I will send it as a private post. Anyone wishing to receive >a copy of my response is welcome to email me and I will forward it to their >attention, privately. > >Sincerely, > >Evan Soule' > > >>Dear Vortexians >> >>I am copying this to the vortex list because that is where the discussion >>originated and I consider it highly inappropriate to receive insulting and >>threatening emails from such as Evan Soule while he maintains a public >>stance which is quite different. Below is the text of the email I received >>form Mr. Soule' and my reply to it. All lines beginning with > were in the >>email. >> >> >> >>At 11:19 AM 9/9/98 -0600, you wrote: >>>From: Lynn Kurtz >>>Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT & LOCATION OF DEMONSTRATION! >>> >>>>At 08:07 PM 9/5/98 -0600, you wrote: >>>> >>>>>***ANNOUNCEMENT & LOCATION OF DEMONSTRATION!*** >>>>> >>>>> NEWMAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION >>>>************** >>>>> >>>>> Date: ***** SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1998 ****** >>>>> Time: 2:00PM (Pacific Time) >>>>>Place: PHOENIX, ARIZONA >>>>> >>>> >>>>> SONORAN PLAZA (in the Sonoran Plaza Ballroom) >>>>> 19726 N. Remington Drive, Sun City Grand >>>>> West Phoenix, Arizona >>>> >>>>Well, that lets me out. I would interrupt my usual Sunday activities if the >>>>event was actually in Phoenix. There is no such thing as "West Phoenix". >>>>Sun City is not Phoenix. It is a retirement community a good 45 min to 1 >>>>hour drive from Scottsdale. I hope the demo itself is not as misleading as >>>>the location announcement. >>>> >>>>I think they could have found a location actually in Phoenix if they wanted >>>>to. Phoenix is a hi-tech area. They could stir up a lot of interest if they >>>>tried. >>>> >>>>Sorry everyone, but I have lost interest in this one. >>>> >>>>--Lynn >>> >>>Dear Lynn, >>> >>>Well, I have to admit, "you are indeed a _bundle_ of curiosity." There are >>>individuals flying in from all over the United States for Joseph Newman's >>>demonstration, and a "45 minute to 1 hour drive" is 'inconvenient' for you. >>> >>>Elizabeth City is about an hour's drive from Kitty Hawk. Had you been >>>living in Elizabeth City in 1903, I'd certainly be the first to appreciate >>>how 'inconvenient' it would be for you to suspend your 'usual Thursday >>>activities' and travel to see the First Flight. The nerve and >>>insensitivity of the Wright Brothers to attempt a First Flight on a >>>_weekday_! If they had demonstrated any shred of sensitivity for their >>>fellow man/woman they would at least have held their First Flight on the >>>_weekend_. >>> >>>Of course, we also have the question: "Is Kill Devil Hills _really_ part of >>>Kitty Hawk? Or is it a separate community?" For anyone to state or imply >>>that the First Flight occurred at Kitty Hawk could be VERY misleading. >>> >>>At least you have the perspicuity to focus on the essentials. >>> >>>Sincerely, >>> >>>Evan >>> >>>P.S. Actually, prior to your above comments, I was sincerely looking >>>forward to the opportunity to meet you -- based in large measure upon your >>>recommendation to me by Gene Mallove as his unofficial on-site >>>observer/reporter. Apparently his positive opinion of you is misplaced. >>>Based upon your above petty and negative comments, you certainly do NOT >>>need to worry about missing your usual SATURDAY activities (as well as your >>>"usual Sunday activities"): were I to know that you WERE attempting to >>>attend Joseph Newman's demonstration of his technology, I would endeavor to >>>persuade Joseph Newman to have you removed from the premises. >>> >> >>Listen up, you jerk. I do not want any email from you. If you have anything >>to say to me post it in the discussion group where this started. >> >>I don't owe you anything. I don't need your advice or opinion on what to do >>with my time. I already acknowledged, as you well know, my mistake about >>typing SUNDAY instead of SATURDAY. What is your problem anyway? Are you >>afraid that since I have decided not to show up that there won't be anyone >>there? Given the lack of local publicity and the track record of the Newman >>Machine, that wouldn't surprise me. >> >>--Lynn Hi Evan. Yes, I would like to see a copy of your response. I considered Lynn's original note on this topic to be a bit petty and spiteful, and I consider the more recent ones (see above) to be wildly overreactive. On the other hand, your comment about having her removed from the premises was uncalled for and childish, as I am sure you are aware by now. (Sometimes it's best to count to ten before hitting the "send" button. :-) --Mitchell Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 10 13:12:09 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA08988; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 13:08:50 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 13:08:50 -0700 Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 16:06:06 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Tell All Now, Evan! Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809101609_MC2-58F8-F8F7 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"OMJqz1.0.EC2.G73-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22229 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex; >INTERNET:josephnewman earthlink.net Since the Congress sees fit to publish 480 pages of the President's dirty laundry on Internet, it seems to me that Evan Soule should join in the spirit of this New Era of Unprecedented Openness in the Oval Office (slogan: let it all hang out, but don't forget to take it to the dry cleaner afterward). I urge Evan to tell us what is planned for this demonstration, in general terms. Will there by a self-sustaining machine? How big will the machine be? Will members of the audience be given a chance to examine the machine closely, and take measurements with their own instruments? The Newman Energy machine has been under development for decades. I find it hard to believe there are late breaking developments that must remain secret. Is there a patent application waiting to be filed on Friday? I see no justification for keeping the agenda for this demonstration a secret until after the demonstration, or even until the last minute. If Soule would tell us now what we can expect to see, he will probably drum up more interest and attract a bigger audience. When I do a presentation or show a new product, I tell people weeks in advance what I plan to say and do, what major new features will be presented, and why it is worth their time to attend. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 10 13:21:01 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA14256; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 13:19:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 13:19:23 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 15:29:15 -0600 To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Tell All Now, Evan! Resent-Message-ID: <"adrw61.0.eU3.AH3-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22230 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >To: Vortex; >INTERNET:josephnewman earthlink.net > >Since the Congress sees fit to publish 480 pages of the President's dirty >laundry on Internet, it seems to me that Evan Soule' should join in the spirit >of this New Era of Unprecedented Openness in the Oval Office (slogan: let it >all hang out, but don't forget to take it to the dry cleaner afterward). I >urge Evan to tell us what is planned for this demonstration, in general terms. >Will there by a self-sustaining machine? How big will the machine be? Will >members of the audience be given a chance to examine the machine closely, and >take measurements with their own instruments? > >The Newman Energy machine has been under development for decades. I find it >hard to believe there are late breaking developments that must remain secret. >Is there a patent application waiting to be filed on Friday? I see no >justification for keeping the agenda for this demonstration a secret until >after the demonstration, or even until the last minute. If Soule' would tell us >now what we can expect to see, he will probably drum up more interest and >attract a bigger audience. When I do a presentation or show a new product, I >tell people weeks in advance what I plan to say and do, what major new >features will be presented, and why it is worth their time to attend. > >- Jed Dear Jed, Thanks for your kind inquiry. Here's Joe's telephone numbers: (602) 977-2813 / (602) 583-4333 Perhaps he would love to talk with you and give you a firsthand description of the Demonstration. Best regards, Evan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 10 14:07:04 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA31338; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 14:00:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 14:00:33 -0700 Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 16:58:35 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: [OFF TOPIC] Elizabeth City, VA in 1903 Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809101700_MC2-5900-A518 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"nvWEP1.0.Xf7.mt3-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22231 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Evan Soule wrote: Elizabeth City is about an hour's drive from Kitty Hawk. Had you been living in Elizabeth City in 1903, I'd certainly be the first to appreciate how 'inconvenient' it would be for you to suspend your 'usual Thursday activities' and travel to see the First Flight. As an amateur aviation history buff, I cannot let this pass. In 1903 there were no bridges to Kitty Hawk, and few roads on the nearby mainland. In September 1900 it took Wilbur Wright five days to find transport and make his way from Elizabeth City to Kitty Hawk bay, including two days on a leaky schooner. During a gale Wright, the captain and the deckhand spent the night "bailing frantically, hanging on for dear life, drenched and frozen." (Combs) Wright was a fastidious man, and conditions on board the schooner were filthy. He was unwilling to touch the food, so during the two days of intense work he ate only a single jar of jelly that his sister had packed for him. On December 17, 1903, the day of the first flight, the outer banks were again in near gale conditions, with a 24-mile per hour wind. Later that day a gust of wind turned the airplane over, carrying along with it a man who was trying to hold it down. The airplane was smashed to pieces. The man "miraculously" escaped injury, after "being turned over and over" tangled "in with engine and chains." (O. Wright) Even today you do not want to drive in the outer banks during a gale. In 1928, when the cornerstone to a Memorial was dedicated at Kitty Hawk, there was still no bridge and no roads, and it took most of the day for 200 distinguished guests to reach the site by bus, automobile and boat. A concrete highway, the first permanent road on the island, was finished in time for the Memorial dedication in 1932. And now back to your regularly scheduled program . . . - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 10 15:08:18 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA26499; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 15:06:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 15:06:42 -0700 Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 18:05:04 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Spoke with Newman Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809101807_MC2-58F6-AE97 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"SvWaM.0.hT6.mr4-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22232 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Per Evan Soule's suggestion, I spoke briefly with Joe Newman this afternoon. With Newman's permission I tape recorded the conversation. I might publish part of the transcript in I.E. It was not a very informative exchange. To summarize: The machine weighs roughly 400 lbs (180 kg). The shaft is about 3' long (0.9 meters). The machine will be powered by batteries. Input power will be measured with "an amp-meter in the line and a volt meter across the battery pack." Output power will be measured with a dynamometer. They had hoped to install a high quality, precision dynamometer, but the manufacturer did not deliver on time, so they will probably use a prony brake style dynamometer. I gather Newman has not seen the dynamometer yet. I asked how they intend to measure RPMs, "with a strobe light or something?" He was not sure. He said, "well, you know dynamometers are made with many different designs . . ." He said that Milton Everett, a mechanical engineer, is presently building the prony brake dynamometer. We have been in contact with Everett, as you see from the correspondence posted here. They better hustle and get the equipment in place and tested if they want this demonstration ready by Saturday. They plan to operate the machine for about 10 minutes during a demonstration run, and they may repeat the run 4 or 5 times during the day so different groups of people can see it. I asked repeatedly whether they intended to do a self-sustaining demonstration that does not rely upon instrument readings. He said no. I asked if he has ever done any such test. He said "I have done that in the past, based simply on the back emf from the system is charging the batteries, and even Ray-o-vac battery company designed a paper saying it was so . . . They are even on tape." I responded, "Yeah, I am aware of that, but I am curious to know whether in *this particular* demonstration you were thinking of having it self-regenerate, and keep running hour after hour, say . . ." Newman: "No, because that's not the way to prove it. The way to prove it simply is to show there is more energy out on the shaft than what you put into it. That's everything that has ever been taught in science." We went around this subject a few more times. I suggested that he might run the thing until the battery pack would normally be exhausted. He said that would take too long. I suggested he reduce the number of batteries, to make the pack drain quickly. Me: ". . . if you want to demonstrate that it is getting more energy out than normal, you might consider reducing the battery pack . . ." Newman: "No, but see that's easy to prove. You don't have to drain the battery. All you have to do is put an amp-meter in the line, put a voltage meter across it, and it's . . . Me: "Yeah, I understand that, but, uh . . . a meter can be wrong, whereas a physical demonstration that relies on first principles . . ." Newman: "Yeah, but see, I'm saying it's a scientific fact: if you show more wattage coming out on that shaft than what you show going into it, it's obvious then . . ." To quote the other Newman (Paul, of movie and salad dressing fame), what we have here is a failure to communicate. ("Cool Hand Luke," 1967) I do not think this demonstration will be convincing, although it will be intriguing if it shows significantly more output than input. It would be more convincing with proper instruments: integrated data recording on input, instead of meters, and a more sophisticated dynamometer for output. I believe prony brake dynamometer are usually crude and inaccurate. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 10 15:50:05 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA15814; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 15:48:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 15:48:22 -0700 Message-ID: <35F84A5A.6D52 earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 16:53:30 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com, storms2@ix.netcom.com Subject: Storms: Blue: CF claims 9.10.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"3e1TD1.0.us3.rS5-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22233 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: 9/10/98 Dear Dr. Blue, Rick Murray sent me an e-mail comment you made about cold fusion in general and my work in particular. Normally, I see little purpose in answering such observations. Nevertheless, I would like to give you a bit more information than you presently acknowledge. You wrote: As many of the exchanges in this forum and elsewhere have demonstrated, the assorted claims put forth in evidence for Cold Fusion are not as solid as Ed Storms suggests. There have been numerous flaws described in some detail in the "analytic techniques" employed in much of this research. Ed Storms ought to acknowledge some of the failures if he is to have any credibility for assessing the successes, should there be any. -- In fact, I do not suggest that all claims are solid, indeed some are clearly wrong. However, a significant number are very solid and do indicate that an unusual phenomenon is occurring. It servers no useful purpose to shoot down every weak claim because such claims add little to the argument for the phenomenon and because some of these claims contain a partial truth that needs to be encouraged. In the absence of a good criteria for what is true or false in this field, it serves no good to risk throwing out the baby with the bath water. This is why an application of too much skepticism seldom produces new discoveries. -- Your wrote: That is the issue of the nuclear reaction process assumed to be fueling all these calorimeters that, according to Storms, indicate "excess heat." I should hope that Ed Storms will agree with me that clear and convincing evidence for a specific nuclear reaction process should be important goal for cold fusion research. My question is, "Where is the direct evidence for any nuclear reaction process capable of the release of energy at the rates claimed by Ed Storms?" -- Of course, detection of a nuclear product is important. Two products have been detected with sufficient consistency and precision to strongly support a anomalous nuclear reaction. These are the detection of tritium by Claytor with support from dozens of other studies, and the detection of helium by Miles and Bush with the support of 4 other studies done in Japan and Italy. These studies were done by very competent scientists in a way that answers all rational criticisms made by serious skeptics. I say rational, because some skeptics, such as Jones, have a tendency to ignore facts while proposing explanations having no basis in reality. I might point out, that a criticism can be just as faulty and full of error as can be true of the claim being criticized. As for showing that the measured excess heat is consistent with the amount of nuclear product, the Miles-Bush work does this rather well. The rest of us, when we observe excess energy, have to assume that a similar nuclear product is being produced - being too poor, thanks to the skeptics, to make the necessary collateral measurements. This limitation should not distract from the reality of the observed excess energy. In addition, the existence of error in the measurement, as is the case with all measurements, should not be used as a reason to reject all observations. Granted, some studies are clearly too poorly done to provide a reason to believe if they provided the only reason. But when these studies are combined with very well done work to show a consistent pattern of behavior, the reasons to believe become very strong. Unfortunately, skeptics of the field use a double standard. My experience has been that when any other claim of science is examined by such people their demands for proof are far less stringent. Is this true for you? -- You wrote: It is not just that the evidence for nuclear reactions is lacking. The fact is that there is a tremendous body of experimental evidence that indicates that no such reactions are occurring! Yet Storms and the CF advocates pretend that they need not consider such evidence against cold fusion when they present their case. Of course scientific journals with peer review reject what Storms submits. That is not a mark against said journal. Calorimetry alone is not going to make the case for cold fusion. We don't need any more demonstrations of the fact that Storms and others can't get their calorimeters to balance properly. Anyone, if they are determined to do so, can screw up the calorimetry. It proves nothing to demonstrate that over and over again. -- You surely know that failure to observe a phenomenon does not demonstrate the absence of that phenomena. This is an elementary statement of basic logic having many examples in science and everyday life. The CF effect is difficult to produce, hence many people have failed. The problem is to understand the variables that lead to such failures. In fact, I have now demonstrated how many variables affect the ability of palladium to achieve the required conditions. It is now possible to pretest palladium and, thereby, achieve a very high level of reproducibility when the Pons-Fleischmann method is used. Other methods, such as the ultrasonic method, do not have this limitation and are very reproducible without this knowledge. I suggest you study the field in more depth before to reach such conclusions. When you make the statement “We don’t need any more demonstrations of the fact that Storms and others can’t get their calorimeters to balance properly”, you are demonstrating an example of an assumed conclusion. If you expect your criticisms to be taken seriously, I suggest you practice the same objectivity you demand of others. You wrote: So what reaction does Ed Storms propose to account for his calorimetric results? Is he even willing to discuss such a question? -- Yes, I am willing. Indeed I look forward to discussing such questions with objective and well informed people, as I do on occasion. You wrote: Have I been missing something, or am I correct in my sense that CETI, George Miley, and the infamous kits that were supposed to prove "massive transmutations" are now a thing of the past -- quite thoroughly discredited. So why doesn't Ed Storms X that one off his list of cold fusion successes? -- No, this work has not been discredited. The reality of the claims is still being sorted out. Several unusual nuclear reactions seem to be occurring. The extent of these reactions and the mechanism is still in doubt. This is still a very gray area rather than the black and white condition you seem to require. The field needs objective skeptics who are willing to examine the evidence from a fresh perspective. However, no useful purpose is served by attempting this process from a position of ignorance and assumed conclusions. I hope you can see a way to make a more useful contribution than you have made in the past. Sincerely, Edmund Storms From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 10 16:59:34 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA07642; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 16:52:01 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 16:52:01 -0700 Message-ID: <35F8654D.C9642BD9 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 02:48:29 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Spoke with Newman References: <199809101807_MC2-58F6-AE97 compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"HAHuw2.0.Ft1.WO6-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22234 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > [snip some of transcript] > > Newman: "No, but see that's easy to prove. You don't have to drain the > battery. All you have to do is put an amp-meter in the line, put a voltage > meter across it, and it's . . . > > Me: "Yeah, I understand that, but, uh . . . a meter can be wrong, whereas a > physical demonstration that relies on first principles . . ." > > Newman: "Yeah, but see, I'm saying it's a scientific fact: if you show more > wattage coming out on that shaft than what you show going into it, it's > obvious then . . ." > > To quote the other Newman (Paul, of movie and salad dressing fame), what we > have here is a failure to communicate. ("Cool Hand Luke," 1967) > > I do not think this demonstration will be convincing, although it will be > intriguing if it shows significantly more output than input. It would be more > convincing with proper instruments: integrated data recording on input, > instead of meters, and a more sophisticated dynamometer for output. I believe > prony brake dynamometer are usually crude and inaccurate. > > - Jed It is easy to fool the measurement of input current with pulses, transients and with asymmetric waveforms. First, every conductor have a capacitance and inductance which can not be ignored above certain frequencies. In the simple case, assume you draw power from battery by asymmetric pulses, with different rise and fall slopes. It is obvious that the signal in tended to pass trough the meter will be stolen in parts by the capacitive coupling between wires. Even it is possible to totally fool the measurement by the LC resonance, and display the power flow in the reverse direction. Second, from my very experience I was able fool directly the meters, both analog and digital by an interference of odd electromagnetic field created from a setup. The needle hit the left side( negative) when I closing my hand to the meter. I know the mete r is fooled and not OU, because the additional current monitor formed by LEDs and a parallel capacitors showed the current was still positve. (Later I figured the frequency causing the meters be fooled should be very high, and this frequency is not produc ed by the oscillator circuit based on TIP3055, its ft is below 3 MHz, so it was a strange phenomenon, probably coil had produced by itself this odd emission. I never able to fool the meters again, because I could not able to restore the same setup. it was too fragile) Third, batteries behave oddly to alternate and HF signals. They show different impedance to negative and positive currents and also to different frequencies. Even, measuring the average current using a capacitor could give wrong results, as the voltage o n the battery could jump with transients. If the voltage and the current is not in phase on the battery, it is not possible measure the correct figures. These are real tricky things, even a good engineer may fall to wrong conclusion if it is not an expert on such experiments. Beside, It is very possible the N machine is OU, but it can be self sustaining, and the effect can be destroyed if the battery is removed or attached in other ways. It may *not possible* to prove the OU phenomenon this way. This could be a facit loop. The solution is open public the machine an allow scientist examine the signals, transients and the fields around. I believe the OU phenomenon can not be seen without any artifacts, and this should be cached. Conclusion: JED is right, Newman is wrong. If you don't have a self sustained device, unsophisticated measurements could not prove the OU, especially if the input power can not well isolated from the dynamic part of the system. I urge to J.Newman read this critics. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 10 17:03:47 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA11805; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 17:02:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 17:02:13 -0700 Message-ID: <35F867B0.496B9040 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 02:58:40 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: (Err) Re: Spoke with Newman References: <199809101807_MC2-58F6-AE97 compuserve.com> <35F8654D.C9642BD9@verisoft.com.tr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"BhYEY2.0.Lu2.4Y6-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22235 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Correction: I wrote: Beside, It is very possible the N machine is OU, but it can be self sustaining, and the effect can be destroyed if the battery is removed or attached in other ways. I should be: Beside, It is very possible the N machine is OU, but it can _NOT_ be self sustaining, and the effect can be destroyed if the battery is removed or attached in other ways. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 10 17:22:23 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA15455; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 17:12:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 17:12:47 -0700 Message-ID: <19980911001354.3735.rocketmail send101.yahoomail.com> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 17:13:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Anton Rager Subject: Goofy RF Questions To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"QIpI_.0.pm3.-h6-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22236 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi All, Two goofy questions/ideas that have been floating around in my head lately.....These are the results of several free-association exercises, but I can't find answers -- so perhaps someone on the list knows. 1 -- is it possible to have a material that can contain [via reflection?] a propegating RF signal? I am thinking like a fiber optic cable, only microwave RF instead of visable radiation. Regular FO would not contain RF at those frequencies....right?! What material might? 2 -- can RF directly reflect/refract the propegation of other RF signals, or does it only cancel/amplify? Funny how these two seem related......Really started as two seperate ideas: #1 relates to duplicating fiberoptics with other wavelengths of radiation. What materials might 'guide' /'contain' RF? #2 relates to possibly creating RF based mirrors/refractors/divertors for other RF signals. I'm mainly thinking high altitude 'RF mirrors' of some sort, that could reflect other RF signals to another 'RF mirror', and on to another terrestial reciever? Am I way off? Could holograms do such a thing? Grabbing at straws, but the idea keeps popping into my head. == 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 Thu Sep 10 17:23:24 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA18380; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 17:16:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 17:16:28 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 19:26:19 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Elizabeth City, VA in 1903 Resent-Message-ID: <"p46tD.0.-U4.Rl6-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22237 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >To: Vortex > >Evan Soule wrote: > > Elizabeth City is about an hour's drive from Kitty Hawk. Had you been > living in Elizabeth City in 1903, I'd certainly be the first to > appreciate how 'inconvenient' it would be for you to suspend your 'usual > Thursday activities' and travel to see the First Flight. > > As an amateur aviation history buff, I cannot let this pass. In 1903 >there were no bridges to Kitty Hawk, and few roads on the nearby mainland. In >September 1900 it took Wilbur Wright five days to find transport and make his >way from Elizabeth City to Kitty Hawk bay, including two days on a leaky >schooner. During a gale Wright, the captain and the deckhand spent the night >"bailing frantically, hanging on for dear life, drenched and frozen." (Combs) >Wright was a fastidious man, and conditions on board the schooner were filthy. >He was unwilling to touch the food, so during the two days of intense work he >ate only a single jar of jelly that his sister had packed for him. > >On December 17, 1903, the day of the first flight, the outer banks were again >in near gale conditions, with a 24-mile per hour wind. Later that day a gust >of wind turned the airplane over, carrying along with it a man who was trying >to hold it down. The airplane was smashed to pieces. The man "miraculously" >escaped injury, after "being turned over and over" tangled "in with engine and >chains." (O. Wright) Even today you do not want to drive in the outer banks >during a gale. > >In 1928, when the cornerstone to a Memorial was dedicated at Kitty Hawk, there >was still no bridge and no roads, and it took most of the day for 200 >distinguished guests to reach the site by bus, automobile and boat. A concrete >highway, the first permanent road on the island, was finished in time for the >Memorial dedication in 1932. > >And now back to your regularly scheduled program . . . > >- Jed Dear Jed, Thanks for the more detailed description of several events relating to the First Flight. As I stated above, it could be 'inconvenient' for one to _travel_ to see the First Flight. And glad to hear you are an amateur aviation history buff. No doubt you are familiar with the Fred C. Kelly authorized biography of the Wright Brothers. Other books on the subject of interest are ONE DAY AT KITTY HAWK by John E. Walsh and KILL DEVIL HILL by Harry Combs. One of the most fascinating sources of information about the Wright Brothers is THE PAPERS OF WILBUR AND ORVILLE WRIGHT (in two volumes) -- their wind tunnel experiments are described in some detail. Thanks again for the historical anecdotes! Evan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 10 17:58:56 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA00862; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 17:53:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 17:53:22 -0700 Message-ID: <000001bddd1e$7d94c0e0$ce48d3d0 default> From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Spoke with Newman Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 20:47:03 -0400 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: <"J1jmk3.0.FD.1I7-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22238 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed posted the following: ------------- >To: Vortex > >Per Evan Soule's suggestion, I spoke briefly with Joe Newman this afternoon. >With Newman's permission I tape recorded the conversation. I might publish >part of the transcript in I.E. It was not a very informative exchange. To >summarize: > >The machine weighs roughly 400 lbs (180 kg). The shaft is about 3' long (0.9 >meters). The machine will be powered by batteries. Input power will be >measured with "an amp-meter in the line and a volt meter across the battery >pack." Output power will be measured with a dynamometer. They had hoped to >install a high quality, precision dynamometer, but the manufacturer did not >deliver on time, so they will probably use a prony brake style dynamometer. I >gather Newman has not seen the dynamometer yet. I asked how they intend to >measure RPMs, "with a strobe light or something?" He was not sure. He said, >"well, you know dynamometers are made with many different designs . . ." He >said that Milton Everett, a mechanical engineer, is presently building the >prony brake dynamometer. We have been in contact with Everett, as you see from >the correspondence posted here. They better hustle and get the equipment in >place and tested if they want this demonstration ready by Saturday. > >They plan to operate the machine for about 10 minutes during a demonstration >run, and they may repeat the run 4 or 5 times during the day so different >groups of people can see it. >I do not think this demonstration will be convincing, although it will be >intriguing if it shows significantly more output than input. It would be more >convincing with proper instruments: integrated data recording on input, >instead of meters, and a more sophisticated dynamometer for output. I believe >prony brake dynamometer are usually crude and inaccurate. > A prony brake is a first-principles device and need be neither crude nor inaccurate. It is a simply a friction coupling to the output shaft attached to a lever and a method of measuring the force on the lever, which translates directly to torque on the output shaft. Measure angular velocity and torque and you have power, simply and directly. However, if the torque is a function of shaft position, and the friction is uneven with rotation, and there is significant mass in the system, then the delivered power is not constant and the shaft speed is not constant either. Thus delivered power is not constant. Same with input power. Though nominally DC, the Newman motors tend to have large inductive reactances and voltage and current excursions with time, so the input power is not constant either, and the way the meter indications are smoothed by internal lag is unknown. Thus demonstrations are apt to be ambiguous. The energy delivered by batteries is a complex function of drain rate and time, and Newman claims some back-emf charging effects, so the preformance is again ambiguous. His statement that power-in/power-out is fundamental is quite true, but the measurements must include all the factors and proper integration over time. These caveats are similar to those applicable to the electrochemical experiments. If the demonstrated performance is sufficiently dramatic, then the performance is "interesting" but should be given more sophisticated tests. Having reviewed Newman's book for IE, I'm aware of the history of botched tests by "experts". Gene Mallove's offer is sincere and the tests will be more sophisticated but not adversarial. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 10 18:06:15 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA04032; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 17:59:58 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 17:59:58 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 20:09:51 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Spoke with Newman Resent-Message-ID: <"6vheU1.0.m-.CO7-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22239 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Jed Rothwell wrote: >> >[snip some of transcript] >> >> Newman: "No, but see that's easy to prove. You don't have to drain the >> battery. All you have to do is put an amp-meter in the line, put a voltage >> meter across it, and it's . . . >> snip- >> intriguing if it shows significantly more output than input. It would be more >> convincing with proper instruments: integrated data recording on input, >> instead of meters, and a more sophisticated dynamometer for output. I believe >> prony brake dynamometer are usually crude and inaccurate. >> >> - Jed > >It is easy to fool the measurement of input current with pulses, >transients and with asymmetric waveforms. > >First, every conductor have a capacitance and inductance which can not be >ignored above certain frequencies. In the simple case, assume you draw >power from battery by asymmetric pulses, with different rise and fall >slopes. It is obvious that the signal intended to pass trough the meter >will be stolen in parts by the capacitive coupling between wires. Even it >is possible to totally fool the measurement by the LC resonance, and >display the power flow in the reverse direction. > snip-- > >Beside, It is very possible the N machine is OU, but it can be self >sustaining, and the effect can be destroyed if the battery is removed or >attached in other ways. It may *not possible* to prove the OU phenomenon >this way. This could be a facit loop. The solution is open public the >machine an allow scientist examine the signals, transients and the fields >around. I believe the OU phenomenon can not be seen without any artifacts, >and this should be cached. > >Conclusion: JED is right, Newman is wrong. If you don't have a self >sustained device, unsophisticated measurements could not prove the OU, >especially if the input power can not well isolated from the dynamic part >of the system. > >I urge to J.Newman read this critics. > >Regards, > >hamdi ucar ____________________________ Dear Hamdi, As you may know, Joe has described his "braking effect" in some detail in his book [I refer to his discussion beginning on page 58, Section 21 of his book.] which relates to the attempt to "feed the generated output current back into itself," thereby eliminating the need for an input battery. Over the years I have heard the indiscriminate use of the terms "over-unity," "free-energy" and "getting more out than what is put in." There are those who have claimed that these terms are semantically imprecise and can create confusion in some cases. This is one reason why Joseph Newman has never used these terms to describe his technology. Specifically, Joseph Newman describes his technical process as "A System Which Produces Greater External Energy Output Than External Energy Input." This is an operational description which he employs to made such a one sentence description as explicit as possible. Please note the subtle semantic distinction between the above concepts. Let me make a _very_ simple, analogy which will hopefully not be so simple as to fail to prove my point [:-)]: Go outside and take a three-foot wooden log. A dry log. Drop the dry log in a tub of high-octane gasoline. Let it soak for about an hour in the gasoline. Now remove the log and place it in a barbecue pit. Now: using a piece of flint, strike the smallest -- the very smallest spark near that log. What will happen? Instant flames. No surprises. The log will burst into flame and proceed to burn to a charred crisp, emitting much light and heat in the process. Guess what? You have just demonstrated a system which "produces a greater external energy output than external energy input"! Yep. A tiny INPUT spark instigated a HUGE OUTPUT: a bright fireball about that log and considerable heat. The difference, of course, between the input and the output is the INTERNAL energy resident in the high octane gasoline and log. But please note again: You have just created A GREATER EXTERNAL ENERGY OUTPUT THAN EXTERNAL ENERGY INPUT when the system is viewed only as the input spark and the final output heat/light. O.K. Joseph Newman's system works -- in principle -- in the same manner as the spark, the log, and the resultant light/heat. In his case, however, he is not extracting the energy from a gasoline-soaked log, he is electromagnetically 'extracting' what becomes the output from the atomic domains of the conductor. In other words: The small input energy + the internal energy = the output energy. This is TOTALLY in keeping with the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy! The innovation in this instance is that -- instead of the relocation of (what we perceive as) mass to (what we perceive as) energy occurring through a nuclear fission or fusion reaction, the relocation of mass to energy occurs through an electromagnetic reaction. I am explicitly employing the term "relocation" with respect to the Gyroscopic Massergies Joseph Newman has stated are the "building blocks" of this process. It is from our frame of reference that we perceive these gyroscopic massergies as "energy" or as "mass". In essence, this technology is an affirmation of the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy as applied to Electromagnetism and in accordance with E = mc^2. The essence of Joseph Newman's technology rests on an understanding that: 1) The (fundamental component of the) lines of force about a magnet are indeed "physical" in nature. 2) All energy is the same as Mechanical Energy. 3) The energy in electromagnetic phenomena is MECHANICAL ENERGY. and, MOST importantly, 4) The space within the neighborhood of electric or magnetic bodies consists of MATTER IN MOTION. Very sincerely, Evan Soule' From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 10 18:21:34 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA13104; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 18:19:53 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 18:19:53 -0700 Message-ID: <35F8966E.6CF0 sunherald.infi.net> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 20:18:06 -0700 From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Reply-To: stk sunherald.infi.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Goofy RF Questions References: <19980911001354.3735.rocketmail send101.yahoomail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"5wT592.0.YC3.ug7-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22240 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Anton Rager wrote: > 1 -- is it possible to have a material that can contain [via > reflection?] a propegating RF signal? I am thinking like a fiber > optic cable, only microwave RF instead of visable radiation. Regular > FO would not contain RF at those frequencies....right?! What material > might? Metal waveguides. Think of a waveguide as a fiber optic cable for radio waves. I don't know if a nonmetallic waveguide is possible. > > 2 -- can RF directly reflect/refract the propegation of other RF > signals, or does it only cancel/amplify? Don't know. I don't see how it could refract other RF. It could interfere. > #2 relates to possibly creating RF based mirrors/refractors/divertors > for other RF signals. I'm mainly thinking high altitude 'RF mirrors' > of some sort, that could reflect other RF signals to another 'RF > mirror', and on to another terrestial reciever? The ionosphere is sort of like a RF mirror. If you want to alter the properties of the ionosphere locally to benefit some experiment/transmission, you are doing what HAARP (high-frequency advanced auroral research project) is doing. (Yes, HAARP is real. You can even visit the facility) They project energy (a couple gigawtts I believe) into the ionosphere to alter its reflective/refractive properties over a small area. Is this what you are thinking of? Kyle R. Mcallister From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 10 18:42:07 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA20704; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 18:40:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 18:40:04 -0700 Message-Id: <199809110140.UAA08503 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 20:40:01 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: Spoke with Newman Resent-Message-ID: <"cmKXq2.0.P35.pz7-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22241 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >To: Vortex > >Per Evan Soule's suggestion, I spoke briefly with Joe Newman this afternoon. >With Newman's permission I tape recorded the conversation. I might publish >part of the transcript in I.E. It was not a very informative exchange. To >summarize: > >The machine weighs roughly 400 lbs (180 kg). The shaft is about 3' long (0.9 >meters). The machine will be powered by batteries. Input power will be >measured with "an amp-meter in the line and a volt meter across the battery >pack." Output power will be measured with a dynamometer. They had hoped to >install a high quality, precision dynamometer, but the manufacturer did not >deliver on time, so they will probably use a prony brake style dynamometer. I >gather Newman has not seen the dynamometer yet. I asked how they intend to >measure RPMs, "with a strobe light or something?" He was not sure. He said, >"well, you know dynamometers are made with many different designs . . ." ***{A Prony brake is about as simple as a dynamometer can be. It is basically just a lever with a variable pressure clamp--the "brake"--at one end, which you attach to the rotating shaft. Next, while holding the free end under some sort of restraint to prevent it from rising, you tighten the clamp down until you achieve a predesignated effect on the rotating shaft (e.g., until the rpm starts to decline, or until a certain power draw is achieved), and then hang weights on the free end to determine the torque. A Prony brake never has a built-in tachometer, so Newman will definitely need something to measure rpm's. --Mitchell Jones}*** He >said that Milton Everett, a mechanical engineer, is presently building the >prony brake dynamometer. We have been in contact with Everett, as you see from >the correspondence posted here. They better hustle and get the equipment in >place and tested if they want this demonstration ready by Saturday. ***{Absolutely. I hope that Newman misspoke when he indicated that the dynamometer is presently under construction. If not, that does not augur well for the demonstration, to put it mildly. The entire setup should have been thoroughly tested and debugged literally *weeks* before any thought was given to renting space and announcing a public demo! --Mitchell Jones}*** > >They plan to operate the machine for about 10 minutes during a demonstration >run, and they may repeat the run 4 or 5 times during the day so different >groups of people can see it. > >I asked repeatedly whether they intended to do a self-sustaining demonstration >that does not rely upon instrument readings. He said no. I asked if he has >ever done any such test. He said "I have done that in the past, based simply >on the back emf from the system is charging the batteries, and even Ray-o-vac >battery company designed a paper saying it was so . . . They are even on >tape." > >I responded, "Yeah, I am aware of that, but I am curious to know whether in >*this particular* demonstration you were thinking of having it >self-regenerate, and keep running hour after hour, say . . ." > >Newman: "No, because that's not the way to prove it. The way to prove it >simply is to show there is more energy out on the shaft than what you put into >it. That's everything that has ever been taught in science." ***{Don Lancaster, the well-known electronics expert, is of the opinion that "sparking electric motors" produce jagged waveforms on current meters. As a result, in his view, meters can undermeasure input power, resulting in false "over unity" numbers. If memory serves, I believe he very specifically placed the Newman motor in the "sparking electric motor" category. The danger, as I understand it, is that very brief current spikes will occur when an arc takes place in such a motor. During those spikes, there will be a very high current draw and, thus, high power consumption, but the meter readout will not budge. (If meter readouts changed hundreds or thousands of times per second, they would be unreadable by human observers. Hence all meters are dampened to ensure that they do not register rapid fluctuations.) Thus when input power is computed on the basis of eyeballing meter readouts, it will be too low when high frequency current spikes are present. To be convincing, therefore, any Newman demo needs to take measures to deal with this objection. It is *not* sufficient to merely compute input power based on those questionable meter readouts. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >We went around this subject a few more times. I suggested that he might run >the thing until the battery pack would normally be exhausted. He said that >would take too long. I suggested he reduce the number of batteries, to make >the pack drain quickly. > >Me: ". . . if you want to demonstrate that it is getting more energy out than >normal, you might consider reducing the battery pack . . ." > >Newman: "No, but see that's easy to prove. You don't have to drain the >battery. All you have to do is put an amp-meter in the line, put a voltage >meter across it, and it's . . . > >Me: "Yeah, I understand that, but, uh . . . a meter can be wrong, whereas a >physical demonstration that relies on first principles . . ." ***{Absolutely the correct approach. Newman's resistance to this rather gentle prodding suggests that he may not be aware of Lancaster's arguments. If so, it is a pity that there is insufficient time prior to the demo to convey them to him. In my view, no "over unity" claim can be taken seriously unless it is based on an experimental protocol which is not vulnerable to such criticisms. Lancaster has raised the bar on these types of claims and, like it or not, experimenters must comply if they want to be taken seriously. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >Newman: "Yeah, but see, I'm saying it's a scientific fact: if you show more >wattage coming out on that shaft than what you show going into it, it's >obvious then . . ." > >To quote the other Newman (Paul, of movie and salad dressing fame), what we >have here is a failure to communicate. ("Cool Hand Luke," 1967) > > >I do not think this demonstration will be convincing, although it will be >intriguing if it shows significantly more output than input. It would be more >convincing with proper instruments: integrated data recording on input, >instead of meters, and a more sophisticated dynamometer for output. I believe >prony brake dynamometer are usually crude and inaccurate. ***{No, they are fine in most applications. You can get into deep doo-doo, however, if you attempt to measure shaft torque on a sparking electric motor by loading the motor up to a predetermined power draw. The reason: if the motor sparks, the input power readings will probably be too low. Result: you will have to load a sparking motor higher to get to the desired power draw than a non-sparking motor, thereby making the sparking motor look more efficient than the non-sparking motor and, in the extreme case, it may even falsely appear that the sparking motor is "over unity." Bottom line: if your power measurements are suspect, either don't use a Prony brake, or else do not load to a predesignated power draw. Instead, load until the rpm drops or some other limit is reached which is not derived from the electrical measurements. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >- Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 10 19:05:45 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA27812; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 19:04:56 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 19:04:56 -0700 Message-Id: <199809110205.VAA08899 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 21:04:55 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: Spoke with Newman Resent-Message-ID: <"29f2u1.0.Po6.7L8-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22242 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Correction to previous post: > >I do not think this demonstration will be convincing, although it will be >intriguing if it shows significantly more output than input. It would be more >convincing with proper instruments: integrated data recording on input, >instead of meters, and a more sophisticated dynamometer for output. I believe >prony brake dynamometer are usually crude and inaccurate. ***{No, they are fine in most applications. You can get into deep doo-doo, however, if you attempt to measure shaft torque on a sparking electric motor by loading the motor up to a predetermined power draw. The reason: if the motor sparks, the input power readings will probably be too low. Result: you will have to load a sparking motor higher to get to the desired power draw than a non-sparking motor, thereby making the sparking motor look more efficient than the non-sparking motor and, in the extreme case, it may even falsely appear that the sparking motor is "over unity." Bottom line: if your power measurements are suspect, either don't use a Prony brake, or else do not load to a predesignated power draw. Instead, load until the rpm drops or some other limit is reached which is not derived from the electrical measurements. ***{Note: the "bottom line" comments only apply in the case where shaft input power to a load is being measured via a Prony brake. In the Newman case, where shaft output power is being measured, the torque measurements can taken at any limit whatever and, if the input power measurements are too low, the efficiency of the motor will still be too high. Sorry for the confusion. (I have been thinking a lot lately about input torque measurements on the Hydrosonic Pump, and conflated the two subjects momentarily.) --Mitchell Jones}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 10 21:07:52 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA31494; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 21:04:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 21:04:32 -0700 Message-ID: <35F83F25.5962 pacbell.net> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 21:05:41 +0000 From: Frank Chilton Reply-To: fchltn pacbell.net Organization: ME X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-PBWG (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Good for Jed! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"CxieJ3.0._h7.G5A-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22243 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: While I would be willing to admit that Jed sometimes wears me out, and I suspect others, I thought he did wonderful job in discussing the items and details on Mr. Newman. Clearly Mr. Newman is not prepared to give a demonstration of OU; or even adequately to measure motor efficiency in his demonstration somewhere near Phoenix. Nor is Mr. Newman even prepared to say how he intends to measure the power at the various points of the frequency spectrum entering and exiting his machine. Sounds like the OLD Newman who was demonstrated as most inadequate by NIST. On Vortex-L we have a clear preferred way of measuring performance. Hal Puthoff and Scott Little are willing ON THEIR OWN FUNDS to test OU concepts, often at their own great length and cost. This test offer is very important because from many claims there have been so far NO clear successes. That record constitutes important evidence of the real difficulty of OU breakthroughs. Frank Chilton, PhD Adj Prof of Natural & Computer Sciences From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 10 21:20:17 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA02198; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 21:19:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 21:19:07 -0700 From: SciBorg8 aol.com Message-ID: <76808d70.35f8a424 aol.com> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 00:16:36 EDT To: vortex-l eskimo.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Funding FE Research Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 214 Resent-Message-ID: <"ByrmW.0.9Y.wIA-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22244 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This may not be a problem for some of you out there but it is for me and I'm looking for advice as to different methods of financing free energy research. This would specifically be a problem for those not connected w/ a university or amateur researchers. I find it very hard to finance my research in particular I need a rather significant amount of money for my research development and I'm having trouble. Does anyone out there have any advice as to this important problem? Thanks Eric From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 10 22:44:59 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA27641; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 22:44:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 22:44:15 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 21:49:39 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Funding FE Research Resent-Message-ID: <"zmu6u1.0.nl6.kYB-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22245 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:16 AM 9/11/98, SciBorg8 aol.com wrote: >This may not be a problem for some of you out there but it is for me and I'm >looking for advice as to different methods of financing free energy research. >This would specifically be a problem for those not connected w/ a university >or amateur researchers. > >I find it very hard to finance my research in particular I need a rather >significant amount of money for my research development and I'm having >trouble. Does anyone out there have any advice as to this important problem? >Thanks > >Eric If you want to do free energy research either make more money or spend less for other things. My amateur research is funded out of my retirement check, for example. That's the interesting thing about free energy research, there is a lot of small science to be done. Unless you have a significant verified and replicated breakthrough, or have legitimate pedagogic purposes, funding for research at less than a PhD level is extremely unlikely. Also, I often question if is moral to seek such funding, becuase the odds of success are so low. It gets really frustrating when you feel like you have a really hot idea and all you need is gadget X to make it work. However, if you have patience, and a very patient spouse, it eventually comes together and you find a way to make gadget X, circumvent the need for gadget X, or even go on to something more exciting. Often other people beat you to your ideas and do it even better and still fail. And then sometimes you actually manage to obtain item X, only to discover your idea does not work. This is not research for the easily discouraged. On the bright side it *is* IMHO a field where it is important to maintain mobility and freedom - the ability to drop what you are doing to go attempt to study and exploit new developments when they occur. This kind of freedom can only be maintained if you fund yourself. I have a list of over 50 "hot" project ideas backlogged in my queue. I have freely given away dozens of other ideas. Don't get obsessed with just one idea if you are not going anywhere with it. The people on vortex are wondefully rescourceful at helping you figure out where and how to find, make, or circumvent the need for the item X you think you need, and can furnish endless streams of ideas to pursue. (BTW, what happened to Fred Sparber?) My experience is that you should put your money into instruments that are useful in general. The ability to measure things is crucial. Anything that measures a a specific physical quantity is permanently valuable. Thermometers, thermistors, scales, measuring containers, micrometers, microsopes, DMM's, oscilloscopes, data logging equipment, etc. Also handy is a wide variey of things that produce a specific physical quantity, like power supplies, DC and AC, and transformers over a wide range of parameters, variacs, controlled flow rate pumps, temperature maintaining baths, an assortment of magnets, etc. As you progess from one project to another it is amazing the weird stuff you accumulate that can later be thrown together in new ways for new purposes. Another strategy is to seek partners with the skills or resources to share the burden - and the potential rewards. Be unconcerned about or generous in sharing the rewards because there are not likely to be any! Worry about making money only after you have a winner. If you are involved with a successful free energy project in your lifetime count yourself as lucky as a big lottery winner. If you invest in one that pays off count yourself even more lucky, because you have overcome even larger odds. The biggest payoff is in having something exciting and truly meaningful to do. Despite the odds against you, somebody needs to do this work, and it is we the Quixotic. Best of luck in your endeavors. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 10 23:29:27 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA06492; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 23:22:02 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 23:22:02 -0700 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: freenrg-L eskimo.com Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 20:29:09 -0700 Subject: Re: TEC, 'laser' in wire Message-ID: <19980910.205440.12046.0.tv juno.com> References: X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-5,7-8,10,21-22,26-29,32-40,42-57,59-65 From: tv juno.com (Tim Vaughan) Resent-Message-ID: <"lg8oD2.0.Cb1.86C-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22246 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Remi, If you get Infinite Energy magazine, checkout the article on page 49 of the latest issue Volume 4, Issue 20. The article, "The Theory of Excess Energy in a PAGD Reactor" by Prof. Lev G. Sapogin seems to propose a similar idea to Transient Electron Coherence(TEC), but in a plasma instead on a conductor. I am not familiar with the "maternity home solution" and the math is a bit beyond my experience, but I believe it describes a coherence of electrons as source of added energy during a gas discharge. Sagopin describes an asymmetric "potential well: created by an electric field. See figure 6 on page 51. I think this is a more abstract way of describing free electron behavior in the midst of periodic potentials such as electrons amongst ions in a plasma (or metal). This also would seem to me to be a transient phenomena because the potential wells would presumably build up energy as oscillating electrons and then periodically dump as a coherent pulse when induced by periodic gas breakdowns (abnormal glow discharges described by Correa). This idea may be just another way of describing the TEC effect, if it really exists. The TEC idea came to me a few years ago after reading a book called "Electrons in Metals" which described the free electron theory in a comprehensible way. J. Naudin's interesting results have encouraged me to take a second look. If this TEC idea has merit, why not in a plasma ? There needs to be more experiments to verify and perhaps optimize the cooling effect in the Newman type coil. A Newman coil could be run in styrofoam box for example. Best Wishes, Tim ( tv juno.com ) On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 11:06:45 +0100 (BST) Remi Cornwall writes: >Dear Tim, > >I think all the laser talk of mine is bollocks. I just want to know >how to calculate a few things which could explain why:- > >. The excitation frequency and the mark space ratio of the pulse (how >long it needs to be on for in the period) > >. The surge current, maybe its profile or some means of approximating >it as a pulse. > >We know the voltage, the pd across the wire. We can work out the power >and then work > >You explaination then might shed light on how to make it better. I am >puzzled why the effect should get better in long lines - the more resistive, >the more effect. > >Confused, >Remi. > > _____________________________________________________________________ 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 Thu Sep 10 23:48:34 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA14265; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 23:47:38 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 23:47:38 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980911023928.0083c480 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 02:39:28 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Good for Jed! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"YtXXu3.0.mU3.9UC-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22247 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 09:05 PM 9/10/98 +0000, Frank Chilton wrote: > On Vortex-L we have a clear preferred way of measuring performance. >Hal Puthoff and Scott Little are willing ON THEIR OWN FUNDS to test OU >concepts, often at their own great length and cost. This test offer is >very important because from many claims there have been so far NO clear >successes. That record constitutes important evidence of the real >difficulty of OU breakthroughs. The problem with relying only on this premise, rather than reading the extensive literature (and meeting the investigators) in cold fusion, is that previously Little/Puthoff have not always followed directions, leading some to infer that this is possibly because they have their own self-interests ("proving" ZPEvacuum). This has been heralded by Scott Little's comments about cf after ICCF7. One should look closely at their results and note for example, they may have seen very low level excess heat in the nickel beads. May have is the operative word, but this was not further explored because of a less than serious interest in looking further or even in adjusting their zero input power offset (cf. for example the ICCF7 Proceedings). Russ George and others have confirmed their lack of willingness to follow directions. Given that, one should not dismiss a priori other serious investigators. Although, flames are probably coming for discussing this, scientists in cold fusion have found that other labs ought also be considered, if serious scientific data is sought in this field, some of which work methodically, including using peer review, to explore, develop and publish on this subject. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 10 23:54:39 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA16811; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 23:53:27 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 23:53:27 -0700 Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 02:47:11 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Spoke with Newman In-Reply-To: <199809110140.UAA08503 smtp.jump.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"D2fcS3.0.U64.cZC-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22248 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: y Dear folks.... I jump into the middle.... If the test is: a] Battery b] prony brake c] measures and times//// THEN Have witness to demo reproduce [within 10 to 25%] a] a and c]... and use conventional motor AND-OR ...bring motor to demo AND OR .. TRY TRY TRY to identify the metrics [instruments], batteries and so on... then we can go off line and repro with 'regular' motor. On Thu, 10 Sep 1998, Mitchell Jones wrote: > >To: Vortex > > > >Per Evan Soule's suggestion, I spoke briefly with Joe Newman this afternoon. > >With Newman's permission I tape recorded the conversation. I might publish > >part of the transcript in I.E. It was not a very informative exchange. To > >summarize: > > > >The machine weighs roughly 400 lbs (180 kg). The shaft is about 3' long (0.9 > >meters). The machine will be powered by batteries. Input power will be > >measured with "an amp-meter in the line and a volt meter across the battery > >pack." Output power will be measured with a dynamometer. They had hoped to > >install a high quality, precision dynamometer, but the manufacturer did not > >deliver on time, so they will probably use a prony brake style dynamometer. I > >gather Newman has not seen the dynamometer yet. I asked how they intend to > >measure RPMs, "with a strobe light or something?" He was not sure. He said, > >"well, you know dynamometers are made with many different designs . . ." > > ***{A Prony brake is about as simple as a dynamometer can be. It is > basically just a lever with a variable pressure clamp--the "brake"--at one > end, which you attach to the rotating shaft. Next, while holding the free > end under some sort of restraint to prevent it from rising, you tighten the > clamp down until you achieve a predesignated effect on the rotating shaft > (e.g., until the rpm starts to decline, or until a certain power draw is > achieved), and then hang weights on the free end to determine the torque. A > Prony brake never has a built-in tachometer, so Newman will definitely need > something to measure rpm's. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > He > >said that Milton Everett, a mechanical engineer, is presently building the > >prony brake dynamometer. We have been in contact with Everett, as you see from > >the correspondence posted here. They better hustle and get the equipment in > >place and tested if they want this demonstration ready by Saturday. > > ***{Absolutely. I hope that Newman misspoke when he indicated that the > dynamometer is presently under construction. If not, that does not augur > well for the demonstration, to put it mildly. The entire setup should have > been thoroughly tested and debugged literally *weeks* before any thought > was given to renting space and announcing a public demo! --Mitchell > Jones}*** > > > > >They plan to operate the machine for about 10 minutes during a demonstration > >run, and they may repeat the run 4 or 5 times during the day so different > >groups of people can see it. > > > >I asked repeatedly whether they intended to do a self-sustaining demonstration > >that does not rely upon instrument readings. He said no. I asked if he has > >ever done any such test. He said "I have done that in the past, based simply > >on the back emf from the system is charging the batteries, and even Ray-o-vac > >battery company designed a paper saying it was so . . . They are even on > >tape." > > > >I responded, "Yeah, I am aware of that, but I am curious to know whether in > >*this particular* demonstration you were thinking of having it > >self-regenerate, and keep running hour after hour, say . . ." > > > >Newman: "No, because that's not the way to prove it. The way to prove it > >simply is to show there is more energy out on the shaft than what you put into > >it. That's everything that has ever been taught in science." > > ***{Don Lancaster, the well-known electronics expert, is of the opinion > that "sparking electric motors" produce jagged waveforms on current meters. > As a result, in his view, meters can undermeasure input power, resulting in > false "over unity" numbers. If memory serves, I believe he very > specifically placed the Newman motor in the "sparking electric motor" > category. The danger, as I understand it, is that very brief current spikes > will occur when an arc takes place in such a motor. During those spikes, > there will be a very high current draw and, thus, high power consumption, > but the meter readout will not budge. (If meter readouts changed hundreds > or thousands of times per second, they would be unreadable by human > observers. Hence all meters are dampened to ensure that they do not > register rapid fluctuations.) Thus when input power is computed on the > basis of eyeballing meter readouts, it will be too low when high frequency > current spikes are present. To be convincing, therefore, any Newman demo > needs to take measures to deal with this objection. It is *not* sufficient > to merely compute input power based on those questionable meter readouts. > --Mitchell Jones}*** > > > > >We went around this subject a few more times. I suggested that he might run > >the thing until the battery pack would normally be exhausted. He said that > >would take too long. I suggested he reduce the number of batteries, to make > >the pack drain quickly. > > > >Me: ". . . if you want to demonstrate that it is getting more energy out than > >normal, you might consider reducing the battery pack . . ." > > > >Newman: "No, but see that's easy to prove. You don't have to drain the > >battery. All you have to do is put an amp-meter in the line, put a voltage > >meter across it, and it's . . . > > > >Me: "Yeah, I understand that, but, uh . . . a meter can be wrong, whereas a > >physical demonstration that relies on first principles . . ." > > ***{Absolutely the correct approach. Newman's resistance to this rather > gentle prodding suggests that he may not be aware of Lancaster's arguments. > If so, it is a pity that there is insufficient time prior to the demo to > convey them to him. In my view, no "over unity" claim can be taken > seriously unless it is based on an experimental protocol which is not > vulnerable to such criticisms. Lancaster has raised the bar on these types > of claims and, like it or not, experimenters must comply if they want to be > taken seriously. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > > > >Newman: "Yeah, but see, I'm saying it's a scientific fact: if you show more > >wattage coming out on that shaft than what you show going into it, it's > >obvious then . . ." > > > >To quote the other Newman (Paul, of movie and salad dressing fame), what we > >have here is a failure to communicate. ("Cool Hand Luke," 1967) > > > > > >I do not think this demonstration will be convincing, although it will be > >intriguing if it shows significantly more output than input. It would be more > >convincing with proper instruments: integrated data recording on input, > >instead of meters, and a more sophisticated dynamometer for output. I believe > >prony brake dynamometer are usually crude and inaccurate. > > ***{No, they are fine in most applications. You can get into deep doo-doo, > however, if you attempt to measure shaft torque on a sparking electric > motor by loading the motor up to a predetermined power draw. The reason: if > the motor sparks, the input power readings will probably be too low. > Result: you will have to load a sparking motor higher to get to the desired > power draw than a non-sparking motor, thereby making the sparking motor > look more efficient than the non-sparking motor and, in the extreme case, > it may even falsely appear that the sparking motor is "over unity." Bottom > line: if your power measurements are suspect, either don't use a Prony > brake, or else do not load to a predesignated power draw. Instead, load > until the rpm drops or some other limit is reached which is not derived > from the electrical measurements. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > > > >- Jed > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 11 00:05:37 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA19273; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 23:58:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 23:58:52 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980911025045.00831b90 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 02:50:45 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Good for Jed! In-Reply-To: References: <35F83F25.5962 pacbell.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"e5oFB3.0.2j4.heC-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22250 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 02:49 AM 9/11/98 -0400, John Schnurer wrote: > > > Dea Vo., > > Hope someone is there .... to observe... rather than pre suppose >or pre conceive ..... Very eloquent. Hopefully, folks with "investors disease" will stay away from the inventor. Too much "investors disease" being blamed on the inventors/researchers. ;-)X > >On Thu, 10 Sep 1998, Frank Chilton wrote: > >> While I would be willing to admit that Jed sometimes wears me out, and >> I suspect others, I thought he did wonderful job in discussing the items >> and details on Mr. Newman. >> Clearly Mr. Newman is not prepared to give a demonstration of OU; or >> even adequately to measure motor efficiency in his demonstration >> somewhere near Phoenix. >> Nor is Mr. Newman even prepared to say how he intends to measure the >> power at the various points of the frequency spectrum entering and >> exiting his machine. Sounds like the OLD Newman who was demonstrated as >> most inadequate by NIST. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 11 00:06:44 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA18359; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 23:55:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 23:55:41 -0700 Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 02:49:24 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: Frank Chilton cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Good for Jed! In-Reply-To: <35F83F25.5962 pacbell.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"khKrs2.0.hU4.ibC-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22249 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dea Vo., Hope someone is there .... to observe... rather than pre suppose or pre conceive ..... On Thu, 10 Sep 1998, Frank Chilton wrote: > While I would be willing to admit that Jed sometimes wears me out, and > I suspect others, I thought he did wonderful job in discussing the items > and details on Mr. Newman. > Clearly Mr. Newman is not prepared to give a demonstration of OU; or > even adequately to measure motor efficiency in his demonstration > somewhere near Phoenix. > Nor is Mr. Newman even prepared to say how he intends to measure the > power at the various points of the frequency spectrum entering and > exiting his machine. Sounds like the OLD Newman who was demonstrated as > most inadequate by NIST. > On Vortex-L we have a clear preferred way of measuring performance. > Hal Puthoff and Scott Little are willing ON THEIR OWN FUNDS to test OU > concepts, often at their own great length and cost. This test offer is > very important because from many claims there have been so far NO clear > successes. That record constitutes important evidence of the real > difficulty of OU breakthroughs. > Frank Chilton, PhD > Adj Prof of Natural & Computer Sciences > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 11 00:13:52 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA22949; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 00:12:12 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 00:12:12 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 02:22:05 -0600 To: fchltn pacbell.net From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: To Frank Chilton from Joseph Newman Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"2W2IT.0.Jc5.BrC-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22252 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >While I would be willing to admit that Jed sometimes wears me out, and >I suspect others, I thought he did wonderful job in discussing the items >and details on Mr. Newman. > Clearly Mr. Newman is not prepared to give a demonstration of OU; or >even adequately to measure motor efficiency in his demonstration >somewhere near Phoenix. > Nor is Mr. Newman even prepared to say how he intends to measure the >power at the various points of the frequency spectrum entering and >exiting his machine. Sounds like the OLD Newman who was demonstrated as >most inadequate by NIST. > On Vortex-L we have a clear preferred way of measuring performance. >Hal Puthoff and Scott Little are willing ON THEIR OWN FUNDS to test OU >concepts, often at their own great length and cost. This test offer is >very important because from many claims there have been so far NO clear >successes. That record constitutes important evidence of the real >difficulty of OU breakthroughs. >Frank Chilton, PhD >Adj Prof of Natural & Computer Sciences Dear Frank, JOSEPH NEWMAN also has a response to your above post which he asked me to explicitly pass along to you: "I challenge you, Frank Chilton, to a DEBATE and say to my face what you have written above from the comfort of your computer. Your failure to do this will prove to me that you are a coward, a liar, and are afraid to so confront me face-to-face. You can run your mouth off from your computer, but I predict that you will be unwilling to confront me with your criticisms in person and in a one-on-one debate." ---- JOSEPH NEWMAN Here again are the telephone numbers for Joseph Newman: (602) 977-2813 and (602) 583-4333 You are hereby challenged, Frank Chilton, to call Joseph Newman at the above telephone numbers and arrange a PUBLIC DEBATE in person with him. LET'S DO IT! (Separate note from ERS: Frank, you've got your facts confused about the NBS/NIST test. The three NBS 'scientists/bureaucrats' flunked in their ability to test the Newman Motor/Generator. This is fully documented [and described also on the A&E Special] and I'd be happy to forward anyone such documentation. It seems that the fellows at the NBS prepared a test schematic IN ADVANCE of any tests in which the unit would NOT be grounded. Then, for EVERY SINGLE TEST they conducted they proceeded to ground the device. With a bit of curiosity and competence on their part (and the ability to follow their own schematic), one would have hoped that they could have at least conducted ONE test without grounding the unit. [This is only one of a number of ways in which they incompetently performed the tests. As I stated, I have additional documentation which I would be happy to forward to anyone privately.]) (I won't be reading my email for a few days so, Frank, Joseph Newman has stated that he looks forward to receiving your telephone call to arrange a public debate with you. -- Evan) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 11 00:16:50 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA22876; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 00:12:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 00:12:03 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 02:21:55 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Joseph Newman Responds to Mitchell Jones's Comments Resent-Message-ID: <"uuRhV2.0.Hb5.2rC-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22251 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Note to what is written below: As it just so happened, I logged on to the net and downloaded the Vortex message from Mitchell Jones. At the very moment that I was reading what is below, I received a telephone call from Joseph Newman regarding some last-minute materials we were planning to bring to the Demonstration. I ran the comments from Mr. Jones's post by Joseph Newman. Joe will sometimes communicate very rapidly and I am not a "court reporter" by profession[:-)]; hence I did my best to rapidly transcribe what he stated into written form before he ended our telephone conversation to go to a meeting. [Also, I would ask that you excuse any typos since my time is rather limited at the moment.] snip--- >***{Don Lancaster, the well-known electronics expert, is of the opinion >that "sparking electric motors" produce jagged waveforms on current meters. >As a result, in his view, meters can undermeasure input power, resulting in >false "over unity" numbers. If memory serves, I believe he very >specifically placed the Newman motor in the "sparking electric motor" >category. The danger, as I understand it, is that very brief current spikes >will occur when an arc takes place in such a motor. During those spikes, >there will be a very high current draw and, thus, high power consumption, >but the meter readout will not budge. (If meter readouts changed hundreds >or thousands of times per second, they would be unreadable by human >observers. Hence all meters are dampened to ensure that they do not >register rapid fluctuations.) Thus when input power is computed on the >basis of eyeballing meter readouts, it will be too low when high frequency >current spikes are present. To be convincing, therefore, any Newman demo >needs to take measures to deal with this objection. It is *not* sufficient >to merely compute input power based on those questionable meter readouts. >--Mitchell Jones}*** > JOSEPH NEWMAN'S RESPONSE: It is obvious that Don Lancaster doesn't know what he is talking about. Many scientists have verified the energy machine's readings on an oscillocope which is capable of achieving such readings at a million times per sec. These scientists have verified that the back spike is greater than the input power. [Note from ERS: Tektronix Corp. also had sent one of their specialists to verify the accurate calibration of their equipment and the specialist remained on-site during the repeated testing processes.] In addition, Pat Spellman, Chemical Engineer and Director of Product Development with RAYOVAC Corporation, witnessed such testing and he signed Affidavits and Declarations to that effect. An ammeter will read input spikes because all electrical motors 'brake' [spark effect] based on how many segments they have & they can do so at a rapid rate. The meter readings for such systems are accepted by comeptent EE's around the world as being accurate readings of input power. If anything, the loss would be such that the meter could NOT read the BACK SPIKE which is VERY fast; however, the oscilloscope CAN read it. With the input current via a segmented communtator, the meter can easily read. Lancaster's comments are ridiculous; it is the BACK SPIKE which will occur in a fraction of a second and you need an oscillosocpe to read it. Joseph Newman also issues a challenge to debate Mr. Lancaster on the above as well as on the fundamentals of electromagnetism. >> snip--- > >***{No, they are fine in most applications. You can get into deep doo-doo, >however, if you attempt to measure shaft torque on a sparking electric >motor by loading the motor up to a predetermined power draw. The reason: if >the motor sparks, the input power readings will probably be too low. >Result: you will have to load a sparking motor higher to get to the desired >power draw than a non-sparking motor, thereby making the sparking motor >look more efficient than the non-sparking motor and, in the extreme case, >it may even falsely appear that the sparking motor is "over unity." Bottom >line: if your power measurements are suspect, either don't use a Prony >brake, or else do not load to a predesignated power draw. Instead, load >until the rpm drops or some other limit is reached which is not derived >from the electrical measurements. --Mitchell Jones}*** > The oscilloscope has been utilized by more than 30 scientists who have verified that my system does indeed produce "Greater External Energy Output Than External Energy Input" and NO SPIKE will be quicker than an oscillosocpe. Regarding the performance of the oscilloscope: anyone who believes otherwise that it can so perform is incompetent in the known laws of electromagnetic induction. The back spike has been ingnored & can occur in a millionth of a second. IT IS THE BACK-SPIKE that is the one that the meter CANNOT read! ----- JOSEPH NEWMAN [Note to several who have inquired: I will be off-line for several days. Have at it! :-) ERS] From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 11 00:38:49 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA30199; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 00:38:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 00:38:04 -0700 Message-ID: <35F8712E.2B6A pacbell.net> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 00:39:10 +0000 From: Frank Chilton Reply-To: fchltn pacbell.net Organization: ME X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-PBWG (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: [Fwd: To Frank Chilton from Joseph Newman] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------4A3F10D25005" Resent-Message-ID: <"Z7dGz.0.mN7.RDD-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22253 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. --------------4A3F10D25005 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit What do you think about this? FMC --------------4A3F10D25005 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: josephnewman earthlink.net Received: from mail-gw6.pacbell.net (mail-gw6.pacbell.net [206.13.28.41]) by mail-la2.pacbell.net (8.8.8/8.7.1) with ESMTP id AAA28230 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 00:13:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net (goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.18]) by mail-gw6.pacbell.net (8.8.8/8.7.1+antispam) with ESMTP id AAA21611 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 00:13:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [38.27.40.119] (ip62.harvey.la.pub-ip.psi.net [38.14.54.62]) by goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA11515; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 00:13:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 02:22:05 -0600 To: fchltn pacbell.net From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: To Frank Chilton from Joseph Newman Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com >While I would be willing to admit that Jed sometimes wears me out, and >I suspect others, I thought he did wonderful job in discussing the items >and details on Mr. Newman. > Clearly Mr. Newman is not prepared to give a demonstration of OU; or >even adequately to measure motor efficiency in his demonstration >somewhere near Phoenix. > Nor is Mr. Newman even prepared to say how he intends to measure the >power at the various points of the frequency spectrum entering and >exiting his machine. Sounds like the OLD Newman who was demonstrated as >most inadequate by NIST. > On Vortex-L we have a clear preferred way of measuring performance. >Hal Puthoff and Scott Little are willing ON THEIR OWN FUNDS to test OU >concepts, often at their own great length and cost. This test offer is >very important because from many claims there have been so far NO clear >successes. That record constitutes important evidence of the real >difficulty of OU breakthroughs. >Frank Chilton, PhD >Adj Prof of Natural & Computer Sciences Dear Frank, JOSEPH NEWMAN also has a response to your above post which he asked me to explicitly pass along to you: "I challenge you, Frank Chilton, to a DEBATE and say to my face what you have written above from the comfort of your computer. Your failure to do this will prove to me that you are a coward, a liar, and are afraid to so confront me face-to-face. You can run your mouth off from your computer, but I predict that you will be unwilling to confront me with your criticisms in person and in a one-on-one debate." ---- JOSEPH NEWMAN Here again are the telephone numbers for Joseph Newman: (602) 977-2813 and (602) 583-4333 You are hereby challenged, Frank Chilton, to call Joseph Newman at the above telephone numbers and arrange a PUBLIC DEBATE in person with him. LET'S DO IT! (Separate note from ERS: Frank, you've got your facts confused about the NBS/NIST test. The three NBS 'scientists/bureaucrats' flunked in their ability to test the Newman Motor/Generator. This is fully documented [and described also on the A&E Special] and I'd be happy to forward anyone such documentation. It seems that the fellows at the NBS prepared a test schematic IN ADVANCE of any tests in which the unit would NOT be grounded. Then, for EVERY SINGLE TEST they conducted they proceeded to ground the device. With a bit of curiosity and competence on their part (and the ability to follow their own schematic), one would have hoped that they could have at least conducted ONE test without grounding the unit. [This is only one of a number of ways in which they incompetently performed the tests. As I stated, I have additional documentation which I would be happy to forward to anyone privately.]) (I won't be reading my email for a few days so, Frank, Joseph Newman has stated that he looks forward to receiving your telephone call to arrange a public debate with you. -- Evan) --------------4A3F10D25005-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 11 02:32:33 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA16138; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 02:26:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 02:26:41 -0700 Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 10:25:57 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Funding FE Research In-Reply-To: <76808d70.35f8a424 aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Remi Cornwall Resent-Message-ID: <"fXdaN3.0._x3.HpE-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22254 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Get a job. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 11 02:36:55 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA17868; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 02:34:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 02:34:16 -0700 Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 10:33:04 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: TEC, 'laser' in wire In-Reply-To: <19980910.205440.12046.0.tv juno.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Remi Cornwall Resent-Message-ID: <"9S5Ce3.0.6N4.NwE-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22255 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Okay, will check ref. Boy, do I like weekends! Time to do something for oneself, not the boss. Remi. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 11 03:05:56 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA20836; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 02:59:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 02:59:52 -0700 Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 10:59:07 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Funding FE Research In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Remi Cornwall Resent-Message-ID: <"y9QvB1.0.U55.NIF-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22256 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Sincerely. Don't tell me there isn't enough time or money to do xy and z. You will find a way. I'm convinced when pushed to the limit, humans become resourceful. You'll probably get a more simple, economic and just downright beautiful solution. (Then you'll probably get it stolen and not receive any credit for it, but you'll know you did it - sod what the others think) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 11 07:09:09 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA02239; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 07:07:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 07:07:42 -0700 From: Puthoff aol.com Message-ID: <44651001.35f92ed2 aol.com> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 10:08:18 EDT To: josephnewman earthlink.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com, little@eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Re: Spoke with Newman Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 78 Resent-Message-ID: <"wlele2.0.tY.jwI-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22257 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Evan, We're not communicating. Even agreeing with your input energy/output energy definition, the problem here is that the proposed use of meters to measure input power can't do the job in the presence of spike discharges - simply can't. Therefore, in your analogy, you may be lighting off your gasoline soaked log with an atomic bomb, therefore NOT getting more out than in, but we only see the spark and think otherwise. You need something like a Clarke-Hess averaging power unit, not meters, to see if the input is a spark or much more. All of us who have worked in the discharge business (us for 13 years) know what the problem is, and we know this demo with meters will simply not do the job. You might measure only watts of input with these meters when in actuality there are tens of watts going into the experiment from the batteries, but the meters are not able to cut the mustard (read the meter specs and check them against the frequencies in the circuit with an oscilloscope). This is not knee-jerk skepticism. Assuming Joe might be right and have a great technology, it drives sympathetic researchers crazy to see him insist on attempting to prove it with measurements we know are faulty, when it would be so easy to do it right. 'Nuff said! Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 11 07:44:19 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA17991; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 07:42:44 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 07:42:44 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com ) Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com Message-ID: <35F9371D.2253D904 css.mot.com> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 09:43:41 -0500 From: John Steck Organization: Motorola PCS - Rapid Tooling Applications X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Discussion Group - Vortex Subject: Re: [Fwd: To Frank Chilton from Joseph Newman] References: <35F8712E.2B6A pacbell.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"9JzU12.0.oO4.ZRJ-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22258 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frank Chilton wrote: > What do you think about this? ------------------------------------------------------------------> "I challenge you, Frank Chilton, to a DEBATE and say to my face what you > have written above from the comfort of your computer. Your failure to do > this will prove to me that you are a coward, a liar, and are afraid to so > confront me face-to-face. You can run your mouth off from your computer, > but I predict that you will be unwilling to confront me with your > criticisms in person and in a one-on-one debate." > ---- JOSEPH NEWMAN Respectfully, when did a debate ever PROVE anything? Cut the smoke screen and and start sellling the device already. Very hard to argue a car doesn't exist if you are driving around town in one... Just my opinion. Flame it if you like, but understand I am NOT attacking. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John E. Steck Senior Mechanical Engineer Rapid Tooling Applications Motorola, Libertyville, IL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 11 07:57:01 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA24457; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 07:54:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 07:54:39 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980911095739.0069ccf8 mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 09:57:39 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Good for Jed! In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980911023928.0083c480 world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"f4rU83.0.lz5.jcJ-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22259 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 09:05 PM 9/10/98 +0000, Frank Chilton wrote: >>On Vortex-L we have a clear preferred way of measuring performance. >>Hal Puthoff and Scott Little are willing ON THEIR OWN FUNDS to test OU >>concepts.... Thank you, Frank. At 02:39 9/11/98 -0400, Mitchell Swartz wrote: >The problem with relying only on this premise, rather than >reading the extensive literature (and meeting the investigators) in >cold fusion, is that previously Little/Puthoff have not always followed >directions, leading some to infer that this is possibly because they have >their own self-interests ("proving" ZPEvacuum). EarthTech's charter is to find a practical new energy source. We are open to all possibilities, including new nuclear reactions. >This has been >heralded by Scott Little's comments about cf after ICCF7. I'm lost, Mitchell. Below are the comments I made right after ICCF-7. Can you point out what I said that led you to the above statement? >Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 12:33:18 -0500 >To: vortex-l eskimo.com >From: Scott Little >Subject: back from ICCF-7 >Gnorts, > >ICCF-7, with 211 participants, was quite stimulating to me. There are a >number of extremely competent scientists devoting a major portion of their >time and energy to this field. In particular, I was most impressed with >the fundamental research being done by the Japanese. > >Many researchers reported excess heat...but few reported really large >excess heats. This bothers me....but it may not be significant. If >anything, cold fusion is not very predictable and maybe it is just too soon >to expect the kind of steady improvements that should eventually occur...if >the CF phenomenon is valid. > >It was rewarding to have Martin Fleischmann attend the conference. He is a >delightful man with an enormous intellect and he is absolutely convinced >that the excess heat phenomenon is genuine. However, he readily >acknowledges that no convincing CF demonstration apparatus exists today. >Thursday morning he gave a very interesting talk which was laden with tips >and hints on how to stimulate the excess heat effect. I took notes. > >It was good to finally connect faces with many of the names in this field: >McKubre, Chubb(s), Swartz, Celani, Kasagi, Mizuno, Ohmori, Yamaguchi, >Mallove, Rothwell, Carrell, Strojny, Schaeffer, Li, Srinivasan, Ragland, >Hekman, Dufour, Vigier, Takahashi, Dash, Kawasaki, Kennel, Miles, Oriani, >Patterson, etc. > >Of course, I already had met some of them: Storms, Stringham, George, >Passell, Miley, Jeager, Kucherov, Nagel, Bockris, Bush, Claytor, Cravens, >Collis, Biberian... > >Speaking of Biberian, he told an amazing joke (summarized below) at his >presentation: > >"In the beginning, God made all the lands. Then God made France...more >beautiful than all the other lands. Then, to compensate, God made the >Frenchman!" > >Needless to say, it brought down the house. > >Douglas Morrison attended the conference and was present at nearly every >session. He is outwardly still extremely skeptical of CF...but he was >there nonetheless! > >Fran Tanzella (SRI) & I presented a calorimetry workshop at which I >demonstrated a working new water-flow calorimeter that, fortunately, was >working reasonably well for the occasion. > >A new guy, Dr. Case, presented experimental results involving a standard >hydrogenation catalyst and hydrogen gas which indicate that significant >excess heat is evolved only with deuterium and only with certain types of >this catalyst. His experiment will be easy to replicate and our existing >BLP apparatus is well suited for job. Dr. Case has obtained an >international patent on his process and is thus quite willing/eager to >assist folks in replicating his work. We should be running his experiment >by the end of next week. > >Ohmori presented results of a very unusual electrolytic cell in which a >1cm^2 W cathode becomes INCANDESCENT while submerged in electrolyte running >at about 100 watts! An adiabatic calorimetry method indicates that the >cell is about 50% over-unity. We'll probably try this one, too. > >Those are the highlights that stick in my mind. Many more important papers >were presented. Mitchell goes on in his recent post to say: >One should look closely at their results and note >for example, they may have seen very low level excess heat >in the nickel beads. May have is the operative word, but this was >not further explored because of a less than serious interest in looking >further >or even in adjusting their zero input power offset >(cf. for example the ICCF7 Proceedings). Mitchell is referring to a 30 milliwatt positive excursion that occurred from time-to-time in the flow-calorimetry side of our Dual-Method Calorimeter, which was designed specifically to confirm the reported 3-5 watt excess heat output that Cravens et al observed from the Patterson Power cell. This instrument has a +/- 50 milliwatt uncertainty and it is not uncommon for the zero to drift around within this range. In other words, the reading that caught Mitchell's attention is indistinguishable from noise in this calorimeter. Certainly we wish that the system's noise level was lower but, at 1/100 of the expected signal, it was low enough for the intended purpose. >Russ George and others >have confirmed their lack of willingness to follow directions. Russ George has no basis for such a statement. We have never worked with him on anything. We did try to get him to let us perform an independent calorimetric measurement, free of charge, of their ultrasound CF device but he would not allow it. Later, when we informed him that we were trying our own version of the experiment and invited him to help, he refused to assist us. In summary, Mitchell has an important point that our negative results should not be construed as proof that CF/OU doesn't exist. In fact, Frank Chilton did an excellent job of expressing the real meaning of our work when he said, "That record constitutes important evidence of the real difficulty of OU breakthroughs." Some folks react to our negative results by assuming that we have some kind of hidden agenda at EarthTech. This is ridiculous! I urge everyone involved in this ambitious campaign to concentrate on the real problem here: WHY are our results negative?..or, WHY were the other results positive? Finally, it would be my greatest pleasure to have the opportunity to report a positive excess heat result to this forum. It would transform Vortex-L overnight into an incredible hotbed of cooperative development. 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 Sep 11 10:55:10 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA31329; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 10:52:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 10:52:55 -0700 Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 13:50:29 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: How Newman could convince people Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809111353_MC2-591E-EBBE compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"s-Van3.0.Of7.sDM-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22260 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex I did not have time to make any comments or suggestions yesterday. My family is in something of an uproar because my daughter is applying to college. Anyway, I'd like to explain why I think the demonstration will not be convincing, and what could be done to improve it. I think the demo could easily be made totally convincing. Many different configurations would accomplish this; I'll suggest two. I am deeply puzzled why, after all these years, Newman has not taken steps to convince the public. First, let me emphasize that the present configuration with meters and a dynamometer is not bad as far as it goes. But it does not go far enough. Consider the input measurements: instantaneous meters are good, integrating data recorders are better, and combining the two would be better yet. Top that off with an oscilloscope to check the extremes of the energy spectrum, and you have unbeatable proof. So why not do it that way?!? You could probably rent the equipment for less than the cost of the hotel room. It might cost nothing; you might borrow a scope from someone interested in o-u phenomena. There is no excuse for inadequate instrumentation. Newman is ignoring a basic, commonsense experimental technique: measure the key parameters with two or more instruments, preferably instruments based on different physical principles. Use suspenders and a belt. Never rely on one reading from one instrument when you can as easily arrange two, or three, or ten different readings. Second, and more important, whenever possible you should set up an experiment to reduce the need for instruments, simplify instruments, or do away with the need for instruments with a first principle experiment, which may be defined, in this case, as a setup in which the machine will soon stop moving unless it produces excess energy. I.e., it must self-sustain or halt. The experiment should tell its own story directly to the observer, without the intervention of instruments, which may be thought of as extensions to the human senses. Newman told me yesterday that in one test, the "back emf" from the motor was enough to keep a battery charged, in an experiment documented by Ray-o-vac. Battery charging is roughly 70% efficient (NREL), and this machine was also under a load (from a dynamometer I believe), so if this report is accurate, the machine must have been producing copious excess energy. Here are two methods of proving the point: Test 1. Measure the battery charge with a hydrometer, run a long test, and then measure the charge again. (Strictly speaking you do not need the hydrometer, but since you can buy one for a few dollars at an auto parts store, why not use it?) Charge the battery with back emf, and run the engine far longer than any battery running a similarly sized conventional engine would last. I mean three times longer, or 10 times, or a hundred times. Then run a conventional engine with a fully charged battery, and compare. Use the smallest battery possible, and put a substantial load on the machine. This technique does require some use of instruments and common sense knowledge of the power needed to keep a large machine spinning. This test would be enhanced with a dynamometer or by driving a stirrer to heat water with friction. People in this forum have pointed out that batteries are highly complex and it is difficult to know exactly how much energy a given battery holds. On other hand the manufacturer will tell you how much energy a new battery *can* hold under ideal conditions. Generate three times more energy than this and you are home free. A variation on this is the Correa PAGD battery swap technique. One battery discharges to run the machine; the back emf (plus a generator, perhaps) charges up a second battery. After the first battery discharges and the machine stops running, you swap the batteries. Repeat until both batteries have been discharged three times, and check the instrument readings to verify that the energy was roughly three times more than the manufacturer claims the batteries can supply. This takes twice as long because there are two batteries. Test 2. Take the battery out of the loop. I presume the back emf is out of phase, and cannot be used to drive the machine itself directly. In that case, it should be used to charge up a capacitor, or another Newman machine. The shafts of two Newman machines might be linked together to ensure the motors remain out of phase, and the back emf from one drives the other. Hamdi Ucar says "It is very possible the N machine is OU, but it can be self sustaining, and the effect can be destroyed if the battery is removed or attached in other ways. It may *not possible* to prove the OU phenomenon this way." I find this difficult to believe, but if it is true you must use Test #1 or some variation on it. I said you should do away with the need for instruments, but I did not mean you actually haul away the meters and computers. Leave them! Prove it by first principles *and* with instruments. I said you should simplify the instruments, but I did not mean you use simple instruments. Use an oscilloscope! If the scope is not strictly required to prove the point, so much the better. It reaffirms the point. Okay, that wraps up my idea of a proper test. I am sure others here could improve on it. Let me respond to a few comments by other people. Frank Chilton writes: Nor is Mr. Newman even prepared to say how he intends to measure the power at the various points of the frequency spectrum entering and exiting his machine. This is true and important, but my point is that Newman does not necessarily have to measure the entire spectrum. He could circumvent this issue with a first principle test, but it would be better to hook up the scope too. Mike Carrell writes: A prony brake is a first-principles device and need be neither crude nor inaccurate . . . But then he points out several ways prony brakes can be crude and inaccurate: . . . if the torque is a function of shaft position, and the friction is uneven with rotation, and there is significant mass in the system, then the delivered power is not constant . . . Yeah, that's my point. A lot can go wrong with this technique. Mike concludes: These caveats are similar to those applicable to the electrochemical experiments. Actually, the Newman experiment *is* electrochemical in its present configuration. How do we know the apparent excess energy comes from the motor and not the batteries? Mitchell Jones writes: I hope that Newman misspoke when he indicated that the dynamometer is presently under construction. If not, that does not augur well for the demonstration, to put it mildly. The entire setup should have been thoroughly tested and debugged literally *weeks* before any thought was given to renting space and announcing a public demo! Yup. I would run 'er continuously for a week prior to a demo. It's a crapshoot no matter what. You have to overcome the mysterious Trade Show Effect, or what my mother called the innate perversity of inanimate objects. Joe Newman wrote: Pat Spellman, Chemical Engineer and Director of Product Development with RAYOVAC Corporation, witnessed such testing and he signed Affidavits and Declarations to that effect. A ten-foot pile of Affidavits and Declarations would not convince me. A properly designed one-hour test would lead to widespread replications, and this would convince me and every scientist, engineer, and industrialist on earth. If Newman would perform such a test, he could easily earn millions of dollars within months, and in a few years he could be as rich as Bill Gates. His motors would be used all over the world, and he would be the most celebrated and influential inventor in history. Yet he will not lift a finger to do a simple experiment, which would actually be less trouble than the convoluted tests he now insists on. I cannot explain this self-destructive behavior. I think it is human nature. If the machine is real, this is a tragedy. If it is fake or a mistake, this is a farce. I think that we will never learn the truth, because we will never persuade Newman to allow proper tests. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 11 12:34:55 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA10490; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 12:30:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 12:30:40 -0700 Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 15:28:35 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: How Newman could . . . correction Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809111531_MC2-5926-DDF compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"6kfSy2.0.jZ2.UfN-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22261 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex I wrote: A variation on this is the Correa PAGD battery swap technique. One battery discharges to run the machine; the back emf (plus a generator, perhaps) charges up a second battery. After the first battery discharges . . . I realize that back emf is on the same wire, going back to battery number #1. I thought perhaps some kind of sophisticated transformer might be capable of siphoning off one phase of the sine wave of power into another battery. Something like a fancy semiconductor switching power supply? Perhaps it is physically impossible, in which case you must rely on my parenthetical "generator, perhaps." I hope Evan Soule will copy the discussion here to Newman, and I hope it does some good. They should realize this group is on their side. We can help. Unfortunately, we can probably help by finding a mistake and proving once and for all the device is a dead-end waste of time. Based on my experience with other inventors, I expect Newman will not listen. He will refuse to perform the tests we recommend. Yesterday he insisted that meters alone are sufficient, "you don't have to drain the battery," "it is a scientific fact," bla, bla, no variation, no other tests are needed, no other instruments will be used, no discussion brooked, bing-bang, case closed. Arrggh! As Hal Puthoff says: "Assuming Joe might be right and have a great technology, it drives sympathetic researchers crazy to see him insist on attempting to prove it with measurements we know are faulty, when it would be so easy to do it right." Soule should print that statement in 30 point type and nail it to the wall in front of Newman. For twenty years Newman has failed to convince sympathetic people, yet he will not change his methods. Instead, he concludes we are not sympathetic! Mallove and Little have helped several people find errors in their experiments, including a group two weeks ago. I wasn't present, but I gather their response was typical: they did not want hear about it, they refused to believe it, they reacted with hostility when they should have thanked us, and they will probably go on making the same dumb mistakes, wasting their own money. Many CF scientists react this way. The skeptics accuse *all of us* of acting this way, but they are wrong. Good CF scientists will answer objections, try different methods, and look for errors. That is true for people in all professions. That is why some computer software is full of bugs whereas other programs (like Turbo Pascal of yore) are wonderfully robust. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 11 14:07:25 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA11910; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 14:05:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 14:05:23 -0700 Message-ID: <35F9AC43.4752 sunherald.infi.net> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 16:03:31 -0700 From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Reply-To: stk sunherald.infi.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Anomalous force acting on Pioneer, Ulysses, Galileo probes Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"S87qz1.0.Tv2.F2P-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22262 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: All: Check out this file: http://xxx.lanl.gov/ps/gr-qc/9808081 Very strange! Ideas anyone? Kyle R. Mcallister From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 11 16:10:31 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA25055; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 16:09:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 16:09:23 -0700 Message-ID: <35F9ACCE.983CEE9 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 02:05:50 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex Subject: Re: Anomalous force acting on Pioneer, Ulysses, Galileo probes References: <35F9AC43.4752 sunherald.infi.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ObC_l.0.J76.YsQ-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22263 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: > > All: > > Check out this file: > > http://xxx.lanl.gov/ps/gr-qc/9808081 > > Very strange! Ideas anyone? > Kyle R. Mcallister Yes, indeed. I had noticed it also. See my post Re: Savonius windmill analogy Fri, 4 Sep 1998 15:08:44 -0700 A real mystery. There is no reasonable explanation yet rather than need for new gravitational theory. "Dark matter" could not helped this time. :) Did you read the theory-of-everything, (www.theoryofeverything.com) the gravity section. the "random walk" model appears fitting my gravity idea also. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 11 16:52:34 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA04205; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 16:51:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 16:51:24 -0700 Message-ID: <35F9B6A7.DF920459 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 02:47:51 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex Subject: Lucent Technologies breakthroughs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"pkA7W1.0.Y11.yTR-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22264 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi all, Do you noticing that Lucent Technologies is on the headers of different technology news everyday. What a huge research program and budget!. What is the story behind? Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 11 18:37:06 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA09859; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 18:35:34 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 18:35:34 -0700 Message-ID: <35FB2199.17728E44 gold.globalcafe.co.uk> Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 02:36:41 +0100 From: energy gold.globalcafe.co.uk (John Allan) Reply-To: energy gold.globalcafe.co.uk X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Investors Disease... Investigator's Disease References: <199809110706.AAA21737 mx1.eskimo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"C-gt_.0.vP2.c_S-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22265 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > Hopefully, folks with "investors disease" will stay away from the inventor. > > Too much "investors disease" being blamed on the inventors/researchers. Sirs, Could I go down on record as being the individual to coin the phrase " investigator's disease " [Also known as 'Gator's Disease] ? A fatal pathological condition blighting the lives of those incapable of novel thinking and primary science, often consummed with unproven theories of their own making, and yet possessed by the activities of other's. Often taking the form of a morbid pre-occupation with even the personal life of the victims of their obsession, 'Gator's Disease even leads sufferers to a direct and usually destructive involvement with their victim's in manners which extends from extensive documentation in secret to personal and professional attacks not entirely unlike " stalkers " to Hollywood Celebrities. It is noted that the subject suffering from Investigator's Disease will often to go extreme lengths and make exaggerated statements to convince others of the need to financial support their " work ", hide the actual sources of financial support and create extensive social networks around themselves, in which they have a great status, in order to further their character disorder. Generally, the suffer will play a submissive yet intrusive third party role within the dysfunctional relationships between those suffering from the mutually dependant " Investors Disease " and " Inventors Disease " in which those suffering from the investigators syndrome profit egotistically by being seen as the " good " or " rational party " by reflection while still masking their deeply hidden and unnatural neuroses. In more chronic conditions, 'Gator's Disease leads to manic swings in mood, threatening irrational behaviour, depression, rage and the loss of sense of humour as attempts are made to unmask the individuals or question their motivation. Case Studies show that the aetiology for Investigators Disease often lead back to early parental conflicts of interests where the young child was forced to plead for one party against the other and negotiate between the two conflicting parties for sustenance and affection. There are often failed sexual relationships in adult life where we recognize the needs of a displaced libido penetrating life's unobtainable yet hotly inviting mysteries, or some traumatic unresolved or unfulfilled professional experience in adult life which likens the condition to that recognized as the common psychotic symptom , " acting out ". The sufferers acts out as if he or she is a real scientific investigator creating more and more sophisticated subterfuges or theories to sustain this illusion while hiding the fact that they have no valid professional experience in the field of their inquiry. More than often suffers choosing novel, contentious or little understood fields where it is hard for the lay practitioner to diagnose their condition from the more common forms of pathological science. The condition being more prevalent in older professional men with some standing, where it can be seen as complex part of the gradual onset of senility, or in individuals having suffered from the imbalances of drug psychoses, X-Files or Star Trek in their formative years. It involves a need to persecute others as displacement for one's own failings in life. A rarer yet similar condition afflicts older women and is related to other pre-menopausal tendancies. While temporary bouts can be treated successfully by voluntary group therapy sessions as pioneered by such practitioners such as Beatty, W and Decker, J. if caught by early diagnosis, unfortunately full remission is unknown and 'Gators Disease may require lifelong professional monitoring. In pernicious cases, the individuals involved should be removed of all professional responsibilities and public health warnings issues under the Mental Patients Act lest the considition should spread further contagious amounts of scepticism into society and debase public morals with their smear attacks. Famous sufferer include: J. Edgar Hoover, Frank Close, James Randi, Tom Droege, ... add your name/suggestions as necessary. Perhaps the good Dr Swatrz might cae to make a few elucidations on this summary? John Allan. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 11 20:39:36 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA15430; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 20:37:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 20:37:40 -0700 Message-ID: <35F9DFB8.11A3 earthlink.net> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 21:43:04 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com, storms2@ix.netcom.com Subject: Hansen: Storms: CF claims 9.10.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"bcIBy1.0.0n3.4oU-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22266 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Subject: Storms: Blue: CF claims 9.10.98 -Reply Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 18:13:39 -0600 From: "Lee HANSEN" To: rmforall earthlink.net Because of some of the comments near the middle of this discussion, I could not help but add some commentary. My comments are in square brackets, []. Lee Hansen 9/10/98 Dear Dr. Blue, Rick Murray sent me an e-mail comment you made about cold fusion in general and my work in particular. Normally, I see little purpose in answering such observations. Nevertheless, I would like to give you a bit more information than you presently acknowledge. You wrote: As many of the exchanges in this forum and elsewhere have demonstrated, the assorted claims put forth in evidence for Cold Fusion are not as solid as Ed Storms suggests. There have been numerous flaws described in some detail in the "analytic techniques" employed in much of this research. Ed Storms ought to acknowledge some of the failures if he is to have any credibility for assessing the successes, should there be any. -- In fact, I do not suggest that all claims are solid, indeed some are clearly wrong. [Which ones? If we could agree on the claims that don't need to be discussed further it would help get a useful discussion going.] However, a significant number are very solid and do indicate that an unusual phenomenon is occurring. [Again, which ones? I doubt we will agree, but this is where the discussion needs to begin.] It servers no useful purpose to shoot down every weak claim because such claims add little to the argument for the phenomenon and because some of these claims contain a partial truth that needs to be encouraged. In the absence of a good criteria for what is true or false in this field, it serves no good to risk throwing out the baby with the bath water. [But what if there is no baby? is a question that must always be kept in mind. There are many examples of phenomena that were once accepted as real that are no longer accepted. N-rays?] This is why an application of too much skepticism seldom produces new discoveries.[But too little skepticism produces things that are not real.] -- Your wrote: That is the issue of the nuclear reaction process assumed to be fueling all these calorimeters that, according to Storms, indicate "excess heat." I should hope that Ed Storms will agree with me that clear and convincing evidence for a specific nuclear reaction process should be important goal for cold fusion research. My question is, "Where is the direct evidence for any nuclear reaction process capable of the release of energy at the rates claimed by Ed Storms?" -- Of course, detection of a nuclear product is important. [It is not just important, it is absolutely necessary to prove the claims of cold fusion advocates. Note that the question has two parts; (1)direct evidence for a nuclear reaction, and (2) a reaction producing energy at a rate consistent with the calorimetric excess heat. That is why both kinds of measurements, i.e. nuclear and heat, must be done simultaneously and correctly.] Two products have been detected with sufficient consistency and precision to strongly support a anomalous nuclear reaction. These are the detection of tritium by Claytor with support from dozens of other studies [I am told there are numerous questions about the accuracy (not the precision) of this result that must still be checked. And, does the reaction happen at such a rate as to produce a measurable heat rate?], and the detection of helium by Miles and Bush with the support of 4 other studies done in Japan and Italy. [I have only carefully studied the results of Miles and Bush, but their work does not prove your conclusion. They did not find a correlation between heat rates and amount of He. Their calorimetry was subject to large errors. That is, because of the calorimetric errors, they did not even demonstrate the existence of excess heat in any of their studies.] These studies were done by very competent scientists in a way that answers all rational criticisms made by serious skeptics. [Bad argument. You have just implied that anyone who disagrees with you is incompetent, irrational, and not serious.] I say rational, because some skeptics, such as Jones, have a tendency to ignore facts [What are the facts? Your set seem to be different from mine?] while proposing explanations having no basis in reality. [But I don't believe any of the cold fusion claims have any basis in reality. See, I can also argue from a personal bias.] I might point out, that a criticism can be just as faulty and full of error as can be true of the claim being criticized. As for showing that the measured excess heat is consistent with the amount of nuclear product, the Miles-Bush work does this rather well. [I disagree, and have said so in print in a mainline journal.] The rest of us, when we observe excess energy, have to assume that a similar nuclear product is being produced - being too poor, thanks to the skeptics, [I have never reviewed any proposals from any cold fusion proponents. Don't blame that on me, and I won't blame my lack of funding on you.] to make the necessary collateral measurements. This limitation should not distract from the reality of the observed excess energy. [Again, I have yet to see any measurement of excess energy (that does not have a mundane explanation) that I can really accept. Accurate calorimetric measurements are not easy, and precision does not prove accuracy.] In addition, the existence of error in the measurement, as is the case with all measurements, should not be used as a reason to reject all observations. Granted, some studies are clearly too poorly done to provide a reason to believe if they provided the only reason. But when these studies are combined with very well done work to show a consistent pattern of behavior, the reasons to believe become very strong. [Consistently wrong measurements or rather measurements done consistently wrong do not prove anything, but consistency and repeatability of the errors.] Unfortunately, skeptics of the field use a double standard. [You are doing it again. If I am a skeptic, I use a double standard. I suspect some do and some don't and that the same is true of cold fusion advocates.] My experience has been that when any other claim of science is examined by such people, their demands for proof are far less stringent. Is this true for you? -- You wrote: It is not just that the evidence for nuclear reactions is lacking. The fact is that there is a tremendous body of experimental evidence that indicates that no such reactions are occurring! Yet Storms and the CF advocates pretend that they need not consider such evidence against cold fusion when they present their case. Of course scientific journals with peer review reject what Storms submits. That is not a mark against said journal. Calorimetry alone is not going to make the case for cold fusion. We don't need any more demonstrations of the fact that Storms and others can't get their calorimeters to balance properly. Anyone, if they are determined to do so, can screw up the calorimetry. It proves nothing to demonstrate that over and over again. -- You surely know that failure to observe a phenomenon does not demonstrate the absence of that phenomena. [How do you prove the absence of something? The first and second laws of thermodynamics are in fact based on repeated failures to observe any kind of perpetual motion machine. That is why they cannot actually be proven. They are laws of experience. That is why I can say with certainty that IF excess heat is real, then it is either a violation of the laws of thermodynamics or it is a nuclear reaction or you have forgotten to add in some process (like recombination of hydrogen and oxygen).] This is an elementary statement of basic logic having many examples in science and everyday life. The CF effect is difficult to produce, hence many people have failed. The problem is to understand the variables that lead to such failures. In fact, I have now demonstrated how many variables affect the ability of palladium to achieve the required conditions. It is now possible to pretest palladium and, thereby, achieve a very high level of reproducibility when the Pons-Fleischmann method is used. Other methods, such as the ultrasonic method, do not have this limitation and are very reproducible without this knowledge. [Or have you simply succeeded in getting some other perfectly ordinary chemical process to occur under some circumstances? That is why it is absolutely necessary to do the nuclear measurements to validate your claims.] I suggest you study the field in more depth before to reach such conclusions. When you make the statement, "We don't need any more demonstrations of the fact that Storms and others can't get their calorimeters to balance properly," you are demonstrating an example of an assumed onclusion. If you expect your criticisms to be taken seriously, I suggest you practice the same objectivity you demand of others. [There you go again. If I criticize, I am not being objective.] You wrote: So what reaction does Ed Storms propose to account for his calorimetric results? Is he even willing to discuss such a question? -- Yes, I am willing. Indeed I look forward to discussing such questions with objective and well informed people, as I do on occasion. [So, what reaction do you propose?] You wrote: Have I been missing something, or am I correct in my sense that CETI, George Miley, and the infamous kits that were supposed to prove "massive transmutations" are now a thing of the past -- quite thoroughly discredited. So why doesn't Ed Storms X that one off his list of cold fusion successes? -- No, this work has not been discredited. The reality of the claims is still being sorted out. Several unusual nuclear reactions seem to be occurring. The extent of these reactions and the mechanism is still in doubt. This is still a very gray area rather than the black and white condition you seem to require. The field needs objective skeptics who are willing to examine the evidence from a fresh perspective. However, no useful purpose is served by attempting this process from a position of ignorance and assumed conclusions. I hope you can see a way to make a more useful contribution than you have made in the past. [There you go again. All skeptics are not objective, have an old perspective, are ignorant, and base their conclusions on wrong assumptions.] Sincerely, Edmund Storms From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 11 21:05:42 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA23947; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 21:04:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 21:04:23 -0700 Message-ID: <35F9E5FA.77E2 earthlink.net> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 22:09:46 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com, storms2@ix.netcom.com Subject: Storms: Miller: CF questions 9.11.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"9_fQ02.0.3s5.6BV-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22267 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Subject: Murray's email on your research Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 01:17:09 EDT From: Wdmil aol.com To: storms2 ix.netcom.com CC: rmforall earthlink.net Dear Dr. Storms: Rich Murray's discussion of your recent research and writing prompts a few questions that I hope you will not mind my asking. (As he did not indicate that you endorsed his suggestion of a Web page, I don't know how you feel about attention from denizens of the Internet. For what it is worth, I got onto his mailing list because, based on my background in physics and chemistry, I wrote to Barry Merriman last winter with some comments about experiments that I hoped might provide more reliable results, and found myself included in the ``Order of the Tortoise,'' which I did not intend, but have not asked to be removed.) Please forgive my asking them if these questions can be answered from your published work, since I have had limited opportunities recently to keep up with the literature. First, I am wondering whether you still (or ever did) hold the opinion attributed to you by a writer for ``Cold Fusion'' magazine some years ago, that while the reaction is occurring Pd is opaque to nuclear radiation, as an explanation for the near-absence of neutrons and other emissions that would be expected to correspond to the excess heat output. After reading some of Murray's other postings about arguments over what various people say cold fusion researchers do or do not believe, I doubt that I can trust a secondary source about something like this. My next question is whether you have tried putting Pd salts in the electrolytes of cells that are to produce excess heat. This is based on a paper that the ENEA Frascati group had in the ICCF-5 proceedings. As you may remember, they used a cylindrical geometry in their cell, with a thin Pd rod for the cathode and a Pd cylinder for the anode, and, beginning after more than 40 days of operation, observed a rapidly growing large heat output up to the time the experiment was ended because the anode corroded away. The details in their paper suggest to me that by the time the heat production began they had reached a Pd++ concentration in their electrolyte around 0.1 M. This was derived from the anode, since they did not start with any Pd salts in their electrolyte. Thus, their cell operation probably was depositing on the cathode a highly loaded mixture of palladium and deuterium, and, if so, it appears to have been a highly favorable environment for the excess heat reaction. Their paper does not indicate that they noticed that deposition might be occurring on the cathode, and I do not know whether anyone else has recognized this possibility in their result and based an experiment on it. However, starting an experimental run with an electrolyte with a Pd salt in it would not be difficult, and might produce quicker results than the Italians got, without needing the expense of a Pd anode. My last major question is about applying the reports of Bockris and Cravens that heat production in electrolytic cells running on deuterium is enhanced by either a static magnetic field or by RF excitation at the expected NMR frequency of deuterium under these conditions, around 81.9 MHz. So far as I know, the RF excitation has been applied through a coil external to the cell, but it has occurred to me that it would not be difficult to couple an RF generator to the cell's electrodes with protection of the DC power supply, resulting in more direct application of the excitation. Have you tried any kind of magnetic or electromagnetic excitation, or has this also been a result that has been difficult to replicate? The last two questions are prompted by thinking that if either this kind of excitation or using Pd salts in the electrolyte increased the magnitude or the reliability of the excess heat reaction then it could increase both the credibility of the field and the likelihood that a useful heat source will eventually be developed. Considering the arguments about repeatability that have plagued the field in the past, your demonstration that a known fraction of your cells will show excess heat seems significant, even though this fraction is around 3/7. Since I gather that you are doing your research at home, with your own funds, I presume that cost, bulk, and safety are all major constraints on your efforts. If so, I would not expect it to be feasible for you to follow the Italians' method of preventing cathode damage during loading by preloading in a pressurized oven, as reported in their ICCF-6 paper. However, since they claimed to obtain fairly reliable excess heat production with cathodes treated with the pressure-baking process, I wonder whether you have heard of anyone else who has attempted to duplicate their work, especially if duplication succeeded. From what I have seen on the Internet, it appears to me that most American cold fusion researchers do not pay much attention to the Italians' work, but this may be merely the result of my incomplete information. I have had some other ideas about possible experimental approaches that to my knowledge have not been tried, but this email is probably long enough as it is. For whatever it may be worth, you have my encouragement in your efforts to be careful and thoughtful not only in your own experiments but in your assessment of others' work. (Other postings by Murray show only too well that this field has some people in it who have nothing to contribute but unproductive vituperation.) I will appreciate any comments you can find time to make about any of this. Sincerely, David Miller Subject: Re: Murray's email on your research Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 09:44:43 -0600 From: Edmund Storms To: Wdmil aol.com CC: rmforall earthlink.net References: 1 Dear Dr. Miller, Thank you for your inquiry. I welcome constructive dialog about CF although I sometimes don’t have the time to respond. Rich seems to have opened a door through which increased opportunity, with the attending distraction, will flow. Oh well. As to your questions - palladium is not opaque to radiation any more than is any other metal of similar density. Nondetection of significant “hard” radiation, like neutrons, is caused, in my opinion, by such radiation not being produced in the first place. While several models propose neutrons to be involved, hence failure to detect them must be caused by abnormal absorption, I prefer to believe the models are wrong. The absence of “hard” radiation with the presence of low-energy X-rays is consistent with models advocating a collective absorption of the nuclear energy. Therefore, no energy remains to be localized into “hard” radiation. The small amount of “hard” radiation detected, I propose, results from reactions occurring too near the surface for complete collectivization to take place, because too few atoms or electrons are available. I have not tried putting Pd salts in the electrolyte. However, this has been done by several workers with some success. Apparently the Pd plates out of such a solution to produce a thin layer on the cathode which has desirable properties. I prefer to produce the thin films beforehand, thereby being able to control their properties. If the Italian work actually generated Pd++ ions in solution caused by corrosion of the anode, they must have been using an electrolyte other than conventional LiOD+D2O. When pure, this electrolyte allows only a very small amount of material to be transported from the anode. Yes, I have tried RF stimulation of cells using the frequencies suggested by Bockris and Letts. Unfortunately, neither dead cells nor ones producing excess energy before the application of RF showed any change. Although I coupled the RF using an external coil, I did place a detector within the cell at the cathode location to demonstrate the presence of RF energy within the cell. Direct coupling was not used because impedance matching is difficult. However, Letts has tried this approach with some success. When I was at LANL, Letts and Cravens brought a cell to the lab which responded to magnetic fields. We were able to determine that a field above 200 Gauss was necessary to cause an effect in their light-water cell. I have not tried this on my heavy-water cells because I do not have the necessary equipment nor the resources to purchase it. Clearly, both magnetic fields and RF have an effect but only if certain other, unknown conditions are present in the cell. Preloading of Pd by heating above the miscibility gap has been tried in Japan without success. Indeed, the success rate in Italy has not been as high as they indicate. The nature of the palladium still plays an important role. The problem at the present time is to convince general science that several new phenomena worthy of study actually exist. Only then will a broad range of experiments be done that are needed to answer some of the important questions bothering you as well as other people. I thank you for your interest and support. Sincerely, Ed Storms From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 11 21:15:55 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA28491; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 21:14:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 21:14:32 -0700 Message-ID: <35FB46DB.AD537A6A gold.globalcafe.co.uk> Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 05:15:49 +0100 From: energy gold.globalcafe.co.uk (John Allan) Reply-To: energy gold.globalcafe.co.uk X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Speak to Mr Newman References: <199809112310.QAA26104 mx1.eskimo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"aNMxj1.0.zy6.dKV-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22268 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Sirs, I would like to see these conversations between Newman and others video taped - and the video tapes made public this time. There seems to be the need for slightly less partisan approach to communicating innovators because the present form of confrontation does not seem to be progressing the field. From both sides, it appears to end in head banging and little else. The inventors gets to walk away having it reinforced that everyone is out to get him or he was right that all his detractors are stupid; the invesigators walking away reassured threat they are the innocent party and that all inventors are nuts. So they both profit but all the rest of us are left mystified - once the entertainment factor has worn off. Surely there has to be a middle path of communication between these two parties as Mike Carrell pointed out earlier regarding business. I appreciate the inventors might have a lot of " charge " built up around their work and the unveiling of it but hey are quite right to be affronted by 'gator parties they do not know or have no reason to trust laying values on them. There seems to be the need for some form of third party mediation service here kind of like Relate - a marriage guidance service - for scientists, or some other peacemaker force. I find it vulgar that Jed Rothwell always brings everything down to money, power, status and cant help suggesting that if he toned his language down even further, he might succeed in helping these people more; perhaps money, power and status not what is motives these individuals. Discovering what motivates these individuals and providing that would seem to be the key to opening the lock, not offers of dosh or assaults on their personal character. It is a shame that neither the Rothwell/Mallove nor Puthoff/Little set-ups can be seen as wholly independent safe third party testing facilities and are attacked as being ultimately self-interested. Of course, they cannot be free from such accusations until they have some sort of public status, openess and accountability. It seems also that this is one area in which a solution to this recurring problem needs to be sought. With the atmosphere of paranoia surrounding any form of innovation, could this ever be established? Too much good work has gone missing not to consider to working towards this. I am stuck with how this might work out because corruption is endemic throughout public, political and corporate life; but it would seem like we need some sort of technological foresight department within a funded supranational not for profit organisation. • Is any thought being given in this direction? John Allan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 11 21:50:31 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA03414; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 21:49:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 21:49:37 -0700 Message-ID: <35F9F092.21D earthlink.net> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 22:54:58 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com, storms2@ix.netcom.com Subject: Blue: Storms: CF issues 9.11.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"_GMOG2.0.Er.WrV-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22269 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Subject: Re: Storms: Blue: CF claims 9.10.98 Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 11:18:06 -0400 (EDT) From: "Richard A Blue" To: rmforall earthlink.net I think the reply from Ed Storms may actually provide a basis for a constructive review of the issues relating to Cold Fusion claims, where we can, perhaps, make clear where the problems lie. RB> > You wrote: > As many of the exchanges in this forum and elsewhere have > demonstrated, the assorted claims put forth in evidence for Cold Fusion > are not as solid as Ed Storms suggests. There have been numerous > flaws described in some detail in the "analytic techniques" employed in > much of this research. Ed Storms ought to acknowledge some of the > failures if he is to have any credibility for assessing the successes, > should there be any. > ES > In fact, I do not suggest that all claims are solid, indeed some are > clearly wrong. However, a significant number are very solid and do > indicate that an unusual phenomenon is occurring. It servers no useful > purpose to shoot down every weak claim because such claims add little to > the argument for the phenomenon and because some of these claims contain > a partial truth that needs to be encouraged. In the absence of a good > criteria for what is true or false in this field, it serves no good to > risk throwing out the baby with the bath water. This is why an > application of too much skepticism seldom produces new discoveries. RB Here is a matter where I clearly disagree with Ed Storms as to what constitutes a proper and constuctive approach to the resolution of a scientific question. Ultimately all data must be evaluated and assigned a weight which determines how strongly it is to influence the summary result. General practice is to give little weight to data that has large uncertainties. Ultimately weak claims do nothing but clutter up the landscape as they cannot and should not have much effect on the outcome. The fact that he is unwilling to set some of the less than sterling measurements aside is one reason it has been so difficult to carry on a meaningful dialog with Ed Storms on this question. We can't get a focus on any issues that should have been resolved years ago. There simply is not, for Ed Storms at least, a sufficiently clear definition of what constitutes a "cold fusion" reaction. What precisely should the experiments be testing? ES > Of course , detection of a nuclear product is important. Two products > have been detected with sufficient consistency and precision to strongly > support a anomalous nuclear reaction. These are the detection of > tritium by Claytor with support from dozens of other studies, and the > detection of helium by Miles and Bush with the support of 4 other > studies done in Japan and Italy. These studies were done by very > competent scientists in a way that answers all rational criticisms made > by serious skeptics. I say rational, because some skeptics, such as > Jones, have a tendency to ignore facts while proposing explanations > having no basis in reality. I might point out, that a criticism can be > just as faulty and full of error as can be true of the claim being > criticized. As for showing that the measured excess heat is consistent > with the amount of nuclear product, the Miles-Bush work does this rather > well. The rest of us, when we observe excess energy, have to assume > that a similar nuclear product is being produced - being too poor, > thanks to the skeptics, to make the necessary collateral measurements. > This limitation should not distract from the reality of the observed > excess energy. In addition, the existence of error in the measurement, > as is the case with all measurements, should not be used as a reason to > reject all observations. Granted, some studies are clearly too poorly > done to provide a reason to believe if they provided the only reason. > But when these studies are combined with very well done work to show a > consistent pattern of behavior, the reasons to believe become very > strong. Unfortunately, skeptics of the field use a double standard. My > experience has been that when any other claim of science is examined by > such people their demands for proof are far less stringent. Is this > true for you? B Here we at last arrive at a concrete claim -- that tritium and helium are the primary reaction products of cold fusion, and that the evidence of this is beyond question. First we need to have a definitive reation hypothesis against which we can evaluate these claims. Miles and Bush, for example, do use the reaction d + d -> 4He + 23 MeV in order to determine whether they are actually seeing an appropriate amount of helium. Only problem is there is a rather significant body of experimental data that cannot be easily reconciled with the Miles-Bush data. We can't just ignore that other data, yet that seems to be what Ed Storms would suggest we do. So who is it who applies a double standard here? What is wrong with the suggestion that the details of the reaction mechanism can be considered when we evaluate the Miles-Bush claims? After all cold fusion is an observed phenomena, is it not? Likewise, the observation of tritium as a reaction product should be linked to a specific reaction so we can actually test an hypothesis. Is the source of the tritium the expected reaction d + d -> T + p? If so then we again are dealing with a well known process and can reach some conclusions about the process as observed by Claytor. In neither case do we have a clear picture of a specific process that can account for the claimed results without some rather considerable fudging. What should happen is that the experiments should be refined to bring some resultion to the issues raised by these results, but no one is interested in such refinements. For example, I have raised the question as to why analyses for helium content should employ only mass spectrometry when there are other techniques that are not subject to interference from the deuterium that must be present in much higher concentration? > > You surely know that failure to observe a phenomenon does not > demonstrate the absence of that phenomena. This is an elementary > statement of basic logic having many examples in science and everyday > life. The CF effect is difficult to produce, hence many people have > failed. The problem is to understand the variables that lead to such > failures. In fact, I have now demonstrated how many variables affect > the ability of palladium to achieve the required conditions. It is now > possible to pretest palladium and, thereby, achieve a very high level of > reproducibility when the Pons-Fleischmann method is used. Other > methods, such as the ultrasonic method, do not have this limitation and > are very reproducible without this knowledge. I suggest you study the > field in more depth before to reach such conclusions. > > When you make the statement “We don’t need any more demonstrations of > the fact that Storms and others can’t get their calorimeters to balance > properly”, you are demonstrating an example of an assumed conclusion. > If you expect your criticisms to be taken seriously, I suggest you > practice the same objectivity you demand of others. > B Assumed conclusion? If nine years of experimentation leads nowhere, should we still pretend that we cannot draw a conclusion concerning the value of a particular approach? Even Mike McKubre was willing to say that he could not achieve a result that could likely be replicated. ES Yes, I am willing. Indeed I look forward to discussing such questions > with objective and well informed people, as I do on occasion. > > You wrote: > Have I been missing something, or am I correct in my sense that > CETI, George Miley, and the infamous kits that were supposed to prove > "massive transmutations" are now a thing of the past -- quite thoroughly > discredited. So why doesn't Ed Storms X that one off his list of > cold fusion successes? > > -- > > No, this work has not been discredited. The reality of the claims is > still being sorted out. Several unusual nuclear reactions seem to be > occurring. The extent of these reactions and the mechanism is still in > doubt. This is still a very gray area rather than the black and white > condition you seem to require. > > The field needs objective skeptics who are willing to examine the > evidence from a fresh perspective. However, no useful purpose is served > by attempting this process from a position of ignorance and assumed > conclusions. I hope you can see a way to make a more useful > contribution than you have made in the past. > RB So let's hear a nice, objective evaluation of the evidence regarding cold fusion of ordinary water as opposed to heavy water. Let's hear an evaluation of the Miley claim that electrolysis induces massive transmutations with no tritium and not helium! At some point we need to decide on a result rather than just this potluck of claims with a different result each time the expeirment is tried. I have made a specific charge concerning the Miley claims which he never answered. In fact his more recent results seem to confirm my postion that the mass 50 isotope he assigned as titanium was, in fact, chromium -- clearly the result of contaimination. If you clean up his date to eliminate the gross errors, Miley has no evidence for transmutations. In fact his determination that there is no activity induced conforms to my expectations that there is no nuclear reaction process. Is that result something you can accept, or are you going to ignore the significance of there being no activity? Which of your two standards applies? Richard Blue From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 11 22:09:54 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA09952; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 22:09:01 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 22:09:01 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980912005942.0083bc70 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 00:59:42 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Comments to Scott Little [was: Good for Jed!] In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980911095739.0069ccf8 mail.eden.com> References: <3.0.5.32.19980911023928.0083c480 world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"w-9-3.0.QR2.i7W-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22270 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 09:57 AM 9/11/98 -0500, Scott Little wrote: >Mitchell goes on in his recent post to say: >>One should look closely at their results and note >>for example, they may have seen very low level excess heat >>in the nickel beads. May have is the operative word, but this was >>not further explored because of a less than serious interest in looking >>further or even in adjusting their zero input power offset >>(cf. for example the ICCF7 Proceedings). > >Little: Mitchell is referring to a 30 milliwatt positive excursion that occurred >from time-to-time in the flow-calorimetry side of our Dual-Method >Calorimeter, which was designed specifically to confirm the reported 3-5 >watt excess heat output that Cravens et al observed from the Patterson >Power cell. This instrument has a +/- 50 milliwatt uncertainty and it is >not uncommon for the zero to drift around within this range. In other >words, the reading that caught Mitchell's attention is indistinguishable >from noise in this calorimeter. Certainly we wish that the system's noise >level was lower but, at 1/100 of the expected signal, it was low enough for >the intended purpose. With all due respect to my friend Scott Little, this is not totally accurate. The expected excess heat for the nickel beads used [by my calculation] would have been in the range of 30-100 milliwatts (when corrected for issues which have been discussed previously). That expected excess heat level is in the range where Scott elected to allow an offset to exist. To the degree that the above excess heat level is correct, there would be interference in recognizing that excess heat. It may have been better not to anticipate a ROBUST signal, but to have worked on methods of better sensitivity and elimination of noise. ==================================================== >>In summary, Mitchell has an important point that our negative results >should not be construed as proof that CF/OU doesn't exist. True. However the implication is skewed. Cold fusion obviously exists. Thousands of papers, many of which have excellent technique, exist in the literature. Here, there is only possible proof that Earthtech might not actually demonstrate those methodical scientific measurements requisite (or have inactive materials and improper techniques) for success with these studies. ============================================================ >Little: Some folks react to our negative results by assuming that we have some kind >of hidden agenda at EarthTech. This is ridiculous! I urge everyone >involved in this ambitious campaign to concentrate on the real problem >here: WHY are our results negative?..or, WHY were the other results >positive? Obviously there is an agenda at Earthtech because Hal Puthoff champions ZPEvacuum. I have yet to get clear answers to all my questions on that but that it is another issue, and efforts are underway to derive the issues independantly. A better question is: Why does Earthtech neither repair their equipment to improve their standards of Q/C, or use standard calibration techniques or look where they MAY have actually seen excess heat? ??? ?? ============================================================ >Finally, it would be my greatest pleasure to have the opportunity to report >a positive excess heat result to this forum. It would transform Vortex-L >overnight into an incredible hotbed of cooperative development. Vortex is a hotbed now, although there is probably to much emphasis on "red herrings". Cold fusion is real and will survive the failure of Earthtech to demonstrate the effect in either gas or electrolytic systems. There are so many people getting good results, that this is hubris of Earthtech to always think THEY are needed to "prove" the field. If they ever demonstrate EITHER cold fusion in either nickel or palladium systems, in either gas or liquid, OR if they can demonstrate the levels of ZPEvacuum they purport, AND then get their paper(s) past peer- review, then Earthtech will take its place among serious groups in the field that have achieved those milestones. Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 11 23:19:18 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA27061; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 23:15:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 23:15:55 -0700 Message-ID: <35FA04D1.70A9 earthlink.net> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 00:21:22 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: MIT: micro-rockets 1998 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"mZaVF2.0.lc6.Q6X-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22271 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/www/labs/GTL/ RESEARCH Power MEMS Micro-Rockets Prof. Jack L. Kerrebrock Adam London Overview: The ultimate objective of the MIT/NASA Microrocket project is to develop and demonstrate a Silicon micro-machined, liquid-fueled, turbopump-driven,bipropellant rocket engine that is fully regeneratively cooled. We envision this liquid oxygen/ethanol rocket engine to be a wafer-like structure approximately 1.5 cm long, 1.2 cm wide, and about 2.5 mm thick, producing a thrust of a little over three pounds. This means it would have a thrust to weight ratio exceeding 10,000, which compares quite favorably with the space shuttle main engine's thrust to weight ratio of around 70, or even the Russian NK-33 engine's thrust to weight ratio of approximately 125. In addition, the fact that it will use pumps to provide the high chamber pressure means that the propellant tanks on the spacecraft that use this type of engine will be un-pressurized, greatly saving in total spacecraft mass. [GTL Home] [Aero/Astro Home] [MIT Home] From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 12 02:06:44 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA16744; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 02:05:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 02:05:40 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <35F9B6A7.DF920459 verisoft.com.tr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 23:04:41 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Lucent Technologies breakthroughs Resent-Message-ID: <"EpIox.0.T54.abZ-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22272 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hamdi - >Hi all, > >Do you noticing that Lucent Technologies is on the headers of different >technology news everyday. What a huge research program and budget!. What >is the story behind? > >Regards, > >hamdi ucar They are Bell Labs, spun off from At&T. In one current urban legend (Corso, etc.), they have the benefit of the little grey fellows in their woodpile somewhere, thus the transistor and other solid state electronic breakthroughs, fiberoptics, etc. I tend to think it's just a tradition of excellent engineering, but I like to keep the door open just a tiny crack. They do seem to stay just a little bit ahead of our time (Panasonic's wannabee slogan ). - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 12 02:13:26 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA17898; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 02:11:02 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 02:11:02 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <35FB46DB.AD537A6A gold.globalcafe.co.uk> References: <199809112310.QAA26104 mx1.eskimo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 23:10:02 -1000 To: Vortex-L From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Speak to Mr Newman Resent-Message-ID: <"dN3b5.0.aN4.bgZ-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22273 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > Sirs - [ large snip ] > Is any thought being given in this direction? Yes - in the direction of Vortex-B, hopefully. ..........PLEASE!!!!........... - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 12 03:48:17 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA28622; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 03:45:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 03:45:52 -0700 Message-ID: <000001bdde3a$67ddcae0$cf48d3d0 default> From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Lucent Technologies breakthroughs Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 21:24:56 -0400 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: <"UL8zL1.0.3_6.W3b-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22274 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: You wrote: >Hi all, > >Do you noticing that Lucent Technologies is on the headers of different technology news everyday. What a huge research program and budget!. What is the story behind? > >Regards, > >hamdi ucar Lucent Technologies is a spin-off of the old Bell Telephone Laboratories, carrying with it one of the greatest teams of industrial research scientists in the world. Once upon a decade Bell Labs was the supreme industrial research laboratory in the world, where the transistor was invented (among other things), supported by the Bell System and AT&T. The needs of the telephone industry led into all the corners of physics and psychology. Members of the technical staff had great resources to draw on and almost unlimited range for their research with only the loosest accounting. With the breakup of the Bell system, the financial resources were trimmed and the organization had to become more goal and product oriented, eventually leading to a new name and image, Lucent Technologies. Some funding still comes from telephone companies, but more and more they do contract research. It still is a major research institution. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 12 05:30:11 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA08600; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 05:28:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 05:28:32 -0700 Message-ID: <35FA5D3C.546A3FB1 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 14:38:36 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Lucent Technologies breakthroughs References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"7m6Wm3.0.662.kZc-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22275 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Rick Monteverde wrote: > > Hamdi - > > >Hi all, > > > >Do you noticing that Lucent Technologies is on the headers of different > >technology news everyday. What a huge research program and budget!. What > >is the story behind? > > > >Regards, > > > >hamdi ucar > > They are Bell Labs, spun off from At&T. I know. Im not looking for little people (but who knows?), maybe their hyperactivities is sign of technologic dynamism of 2000's. This is like there is a motivation to reach some some goals with a deadtime due facts which we are not aware but gov knows. {insert all speculations here, including ET) > In one current urban legend (Corso, etc.), > they have the benefit of the little grey fellows in their woodpile > somewhere, thus the transistor and other solid state electronic > breakthroughs, fiberoptics, etc. I tend to think it's just a tradition of > excellent engineering, but I like to keep the door open just a tiny crack. Yes, Corso claims was disgusting (smell disinformation, as ACC is doing), but maybe there is little truth here, not on transistor invention, but on something else, that he did not realized, or not told. > They do seem to stay just a little bit ahead of our time (Panasonic's > wannabee slogan ). > > - Rick Monteverde > Honolulu, HI hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 12 08:35:35 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA09487; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 08:34:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 08:34:48 -0700 Message-ID: <19980912153617.17081.rocketmail send102.yahoomail.com> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 08:36:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Anton Rager Subject: Re: Lucent Technologies breakthroughs To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"8v_Bm2.0.9K2.OIf-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22276 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ---Rick Monteverde wrote: > > They are Bell Labs, spun off from At&T. In one current urban legend (Corso, > etc.), they have the benefit of the little grey fellows in their woodpile > somewhere, thus the transistor and other solid state electronic > breakthroughs, fiberoptics, etc. I tend to think it's just a tradition of > excellent engineering, but I like to keep the door open just a tiny crack. > They do seem to stay just a little bit ahead of our time (Panasonic's > wannabee slogan ). The new wireless methods [BLAST] are quite cool and should have an impact on lots of wireless devices as they perfect the idea. My math background is weak, but I've been studying their whitepapers for a couple days. Definately cool! While it will be a large leap in the technology, it doesn't take little grey guys to come up with the idea....just a fresh approach with a spacial component and a lot of math....they probably got the idea off Vortex ;) BTW -- is ACC still trying to market that transcap and other 'alien-tech' stuff? == 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 Sat Sep 12 08:35:44 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA09528; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 08:34:56 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 08:34:56 -0700 From: Puthoff aol.com Message-ID: <1e65ba81.35fa9419 aol.com> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 11:32:41 EDT To: vortex-l eskimo.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Comments to Scott Little [was: Good for Jed!] Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 78 Resent-Message-ID: <"Z_0PD.0.lK2.VIf-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22277 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 9/11/98 11:10:54 PM, Mitchell Swartz asks: <> Not in need of repair - in excellent condition <> we do - right out of the textbooks <> Endlessly - repetition of experiments over and over again - see www.eden.com/~little for complete results of multiple repetitions of experiments under study, including computer graphics of continuous data collection; one of the most thorough records available on actual experimentation in our field of common interest. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 12 09:35:43 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA27571; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 09:34:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 09:34:54 -0700 Message-ID: <19980912163625.6485.rocketmail send102.yahoomail.com> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 09:36:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Anton Rager Subject: Re: Speed of Gravity? To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"qlSAi2.0.ck6.jAg-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22278 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Sorry for the delay, My mailbox has been acting goofy lately and things have been coming in out-of-order and delayed. ---Ross Tessien wrote: > > >Thanks Ross, > > > >As usual, a very interesting explanation....but, I'm still curious > >what your view on the velocity of gravity is? If we were able to > >produce gravity waves in a laboratory, what would their propegation > >rate be? > > > Gravity waves are not what you are interested in. You are asking about > aether compression waves. IMO, FTL ;-) I have some ideas on how to go > about it and hope to include those with the funding, hopefully prior to the > end of the year. > Guess we will need a aether hand-grenade to produce those compression waves?! Are you saying that the interaction of gravity between objects would be C, but that compression modulations over gravity woult be FTL? Could you be more specific about what could cause these compression waves? What sort of natural/celestial event might cause an aetheric/gavitic compression wave? If TT Brown's electrogavitic ideas are true, then would a modulated electrogravitator produce aetheric/gravitic compression waves? If his theories on the cause of Petrovoltaics are correct, then could we detect this compression wave with a Petrovolatic detector? Could this be a FTL transmission mechanism? > The vortex IS, a > transverse wave, ie, photon. what you want are compression waves in the > aether if you are after FTL signalling. You lost me on that thought. could you explain how a vortex is a photon? == 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 Sat Sep 12 10:01:02 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA01943; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 09:59:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 09:59:59 -0700 Message-ID: <19980912170104.7910.rocketmail send101.yahoomail.com> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 10:01:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Anton Rager Subject: Re: Goofy RF Questions To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"ES84l.0.EU.EYg-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22279 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ---"Kyle R. Mcallister" wrote: > > Anton Rager wrote: > > > 1 -- is it possible to have a material that can contain [via > > reflection?] a propegating RF signal? I am thinking like a fiber > > optic cable, only microwave RF instead of visable radiation. Regular > > FO would not contain RF at those frequencies....right?! What material > > might? > > Metal waveguides. Think of a waveguide as a fiber optic cable for radio > waves. I don't know if a nonmetallic waveguide is possible. > > Wonder what happens if you introduce an RF signal into Cat5 UTP...whoops already know -- you make an antenna! What about Coax or STP? I'm thinking of alternatives to electrical signalling in cable systems...use it like a fiber cable...only it is an RF waveguide for another freq. > > 2 -- can RF directly reflect/refract the propegation of other RF > > signals, or does it only cancel/amplify? > > Don't know. I don't see how it could refract other RF. It could > interfere. I'm not an RF engineer -- so I am probably way off on some of these concepts....bear with me. When two signals combine, a heterodyning effect can occur [ie -- holography, BFO] -- is the resultant signal's propegation always parallel to the reference, or can it be emitted in a different direction? Using lasers as an example...If the ref beam and modulation beams meet somewhere overhead, could the resultant beam's direction be changed? > > > #2 relates to possibly creating RF based mirrors/refractors/divertors > > for other RF signals. I'm mainly thinking high altitude 'RF mirrors' > > of some sort, that could reflect other RF signals to another 'RF > > mirror', and on to another terrestial reciever? > > The ionosphere is sort of like a RF mirror. If you want to alter the > properties of the ionosphere locally to benefit some > experiment/transmission, you are doing what HAARP (high-frequency > advanced auroral research project) is doing. (Yes, HAARP is real. You > can even visit the facility) They project energy (a couple gigawtts I > believe) into the ionosphere to alter its reflective/refractive > properties over a small area. Is this what you are thinking of? Similar, but I was trying to avoid the modification of the ionosphere. Really trying to think of a way to avoid sattelite communications for over/beyond horizon communications. > > Kyle R. Mcallister > > == 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 Sat Sep 12 10:28:19 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA10473; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 10:25:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 10:25:30 -0700 Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 10:26:42 -0700 Message-Id: <199809121726.KAA02232 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: Speed of Gravity? Resent-Message-ID: <"r-4Lz.0.WZ2.9wg-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22280 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > >Guess we will need a aether hand-grenade to produce those compression >waves?! Are you saying that the interaction of gravity between >objects would be C, but that compression modulations over gravity >woult be FTL? Read QED by Feynman about how light moves along every possible path through a medium to refract. Bopping between atoms or however you want to think of it until it emerges out the other side of a piece of glass. Gravity spreads out like that, meaning, the wave energy eminating from objects spreads outward and alters the geometry of spacetime's wave geometry around it, at c. But never lose track of the fact that the origin of gravitation is the filtering out of incident wave energy. That effect I am mentioning about is the change to a location in the universe, impossed by the motion of some other object in the universe. The change to the quality of the wave energy at some location is altered by some other object, at c. You need to think about waves on the ocean that push two ships toward one another. Each ship filters out a little energy and so there is a bit of a calm near a ship sitting still on the ocean. Other objects floating on the ocean will be pushed toward that "calm". So there are two things going on with that aspect of gravitation. You can think of gravity either as being the extension of the calm around the ship, or you can think of it as being the result of filtering out the noisy wave energy coming from the open ocean. These are just two different ways of stating the identical thing. You are just used to thinking in terms of gravity reaching out from objects, so I have to state it that way. It is not as simple as I mentioned above though. You must treat the very nature of, spacetime. Otherwise, you end up with the expectation that planetary orbits would slow down, which they do not. > >Could you be more specific about what could cause these compression >waves? What sort of natural/celestial event might cause an >aetheric/gavitic compression wave? Take your hand out in front of you. Move it to the left, and then to the right. You just sent out a compression wave in aether, at ftl. There are multiple problems involved with detecting it. Not the least of which is the amplitude was tiny. You must come to grips with the fact that the intensity of the waves eminating from the tip of your pinky finger are affecting all of the other matter around you because the matter in that finger tip is sending out sound with as much energy as was released in the Hiroshima bomb. The reason you don't realize this normally, is because everything else around you is as well. And so all of those oscillations are phase and frequency coupled via a structure of standing waves. You call that structure, "spacetime" and you think of it as a "property" of the universe. When you recognize it is a structure of waves in the ocean of aether we exist in, and are made of, then you will begin to see the magnitude of the problem. >You lost me on that thought. could you explain how a vortex is a >photon? Go blow a smoke ring. Now, imagine an electron has lungs and a mouth to blow an aether ring. Photon emission, is the result of a burst of aether being shot out of the region we call the electron valence as the electron changes from one valence to another, where it can confine a greater or lesser amount of aether. Rule 1) Aether is conserved in all interactions Rule 2) Aether has no *tensile* means for transfering action Rule 3) Every action has an equal and opposite reaction For the last one, you run into a conflict with present ideas when you consider E=mc^2 and mass to energy conversion. Today, it is thought, that rule 3 is not correct. But that is because they fail to account for rule 1 and the emission of aether during fusion reactions. "mass", is, "amount of aether". All exothermic reactions are aether emissive. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 12 11:25:02 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA23564; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 11:21:59 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 11:21:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980912140654.00847df0 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 14:06:54 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Comments to Scott Little [was: Good for Jed!] In-Reply-To: <1e65ba81.35fa9419 aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"qDqtd2.0.6m5.5lh-r" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22281 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:32 AM 9/12/98 EDT, Hal Puthoff wrote: >In a message dated 9/11/98 11:10:54 PM, Mitchell Swartz asks: > ><standards of Q/C.... >> > >Not in need of repair - in excellent condition No, Hal. If you had not deleted the post, or ignored the others, or the comments from several others on vortex, you might have something to consider further. High in noise. Low in sensitivity. Sensitive to ambient. Suggested other improvements listed again below for you convenience, if you are serious. ==================================================== ><> > >we do - right out of the textbooks No, Hal. Where is the step function response, the cool off curves, etc.? See the papers by Dr. Mills, or myself for example. Vide infra. ==================================================== ><> > >Endlessly - repetition of experiments over and over again - see >www.eden.com/~little for complete results of multiple repetitions of >experiments under study, including computer graphics of continuous data >collection; one of the most thorough records available on actual >experimentation in our field of common interest. > No, Hal. There was no repetition or close examination according to Scott Little who examined the analysis of Earthtech data at ICCF-7. [Perhaps Hal and Scott should find agreement in this, if possible.] Suggest reading ICCF7 Proceedings, and the post previously sent, if truly interested. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz =========================================== PREVIOUS POST WITH SUGGESTIONS =========================================== t 01:46 AM 9/5/98 -0500, Scott Little wrote: >A gentleman named Kohn called me today to bring to my attention the papers >presented by Mizuno at ICCF-7 (p. 247 and p. 253 in the proceedings). He >urged me to try the experiments described in these papers, which are very >similar to the incandescent W experiment except that a Pt cathode is used. > ....> >With our apparatus still all set up and ready to go, we'll probably try >Mizuno's experiment early next week. Comments, insights, and suggestions >are most welcome. Dr. Kohn is a good man. Suggestions, again offered include: 1) fix your calorimeter as previously suggested. 2) eliminate the zero input power offsets as previously suggested. 3) add real time calibration with square waves to confirm accuracy as previously suggested; also add (and post) long term cooling curves (enabling noise measurements and other aspects of the system) 4) measure results as Pout/Pin (*), rather than simply try to rule in, or rule out, an effect. (*) and other parameters 5) concentrate on measuring the results rather than just trying to indirectly "prove" zero point energy. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 12 14:59:29 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA08538; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 14:56:56 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 14:56:56 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19980912153617.17081.rocketmail send102.yahoomail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 11:55:53 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Lucent Technologies breakthroughs Resent-Message-ID: <"l-VI_3.0.F52.duk-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22282 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Anton - > BTW -- is ACC still trying to market that > transcap and other 'alien-tech' stuff? Wouldn't have a clue. "Transcapacitor" - that's got to be a Bearden concoction, right? One of those, a couple of flux capacitors, and $5.50 will get you a glass of beer in beautiful downtown Waikiki. Then again, this is way back in good ol' 1998. In 2010 it might be one of those "if you bought $100 worth of Microsoft back in..." sort of stories. The future looks kind of weird from here. And the beer will probably cost $10 by then. I assume a transcapacitor changes its capacitance as voltage across some leads changes? I'm at a loss as to what sort of capability that would give us. A while back I was thinking that modulating the capacitance of a given volume of matter (or space) might do something - send out 'dielectric' waves of some sort, or possibly help to mix and detect such waves. But then I became convinced that those Hodowanecs were just detecting internal thermal noise and such. That's pretty funny when you think of it - "these noises are either little bursts of electrical activity driven by thermal activity in the components, or maybe they're stars exploding." Come to think of it, in a way even that's just a matter of scale! - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 12 15:30:41 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA20086; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 15:28:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 15:28:23 -0700 Message-ID: <35FAF324.5BD0 skylink.net> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 15:18:12 -0700 From: Robert Stirniman X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Anomalous force acting on Pioneer, Ulysses, Galileo probes References: <35F9AC43.4752 sunherald.infi.net> <35FAD332.4EBB@skylink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"cqy241.0.kv4.6Ml-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22283 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: > Check out this file: > http://xxx.lanl.gov/ps/gr-qc/9808081 Embedded may be an experimental measurement of the transverse gravitational wave velocity. The above paper discovers a very slightly greater value of the gravitoelectric field when we get further out there. But, do we presume to measure it wrong to begin with? It should be expected that our planet orbits nearly entirely, yet not entirely, under the influence of the gravitoelectric field. Solar rotation coupled to the earth's orbital velocity must produce a very small repulsive force -- a dipole field falling off as 1/r^3. Presumably this force is negligible, but possibly it is measured well in the above experiments. Regards, Robert Stirniman From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 12 15:34:25 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA23357; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 15:33:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 15:33:30 -0700 Message-ID: <35FAF6C1.64477E9E gte.net> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 15:33:12 -0700 From: Bob Horst X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" Subject: Re: Speak to Mr Newman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"QJVEo2.0.ni5.vQl-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22284 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John Allan wrote: > It is a shame that neither the Rothwell/Mallove nor Puthoff/Little set-ups can be > seen as wholly independent safe third party testing facilities and are attacked > as being ultimately self-interested. Of course, they cannot be free from such > accusations until they have some sort of public status, openess and > accountability. It seems also that this is one area in which a solution to this > recurring problem needs to be sought. > John -- You seem to be implying that these labs are intentionally repressing postiive results. I have visited Little's lab and am quite convinced that if anyone brought him a working prototype that could reliably produce one lousy watt of excess power, he would have no trouble detecting it, and certainly would not hesitate to widely publicise the fact (if given the permission of the inventors). He would not need any special status to convince me (or I suspect many other readers of this forum). I believe that his instruments are supurb, and his motives beyond reproach. I have not visited Mallove's lab, but if anything, his motives would be even stronger to report any positive results he sees. -- Bob Horst From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 12 15:48:20 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA28325; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 15:45:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 15:45:18 -0700 Message-ID: <35FAECA7.4D3E earthlink.net> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 16:50:31 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Biberian: CF a pioneer science 9.12.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"_BXFV3.0.6w6.ybl-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22285 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Subject: Re: Blue: Storms: CF issues 9.11.98 Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 09:49:08 +0200 From: "Jean-Paul Bibérian" To: rmforall earthlink.net References: 1 [Rich Murray: I really like this spirited attitude, which cuts through the fairly sterile believer-skeptic polarization. Can we catch the science-avoidant ghost? How can we design experiments that will record enough data about rare, hard-to-replicate events, so that at least preliminary convincing snapshots are available, such as actual real-time detection and imaging of hot spots? Blue suggests that optical spectroscopy can prove He production: can this be achieved at the level of detecting single photons? What if the putative many body reactions are truly exotic, producing realms of neutrinos, carrying invisibly away most of the momentum and energy? Perhaps gross calorimetry is largely irrevant and ineffective. Rutherford didn't need calorimetry to prove the minute size and immense density of the atomic nucleus about 1914. Any replications attempted of the Russian biological transmutation results?] This discussion pushes me to tell this. All these discussion on the validity of Cold Fusion are useless. At this point in time, and at the level of scientific results we have, it is clear to me that no one has solid enough data to convince highly skeptics scientists. I have done myself many experiments, and have at the moment six different types of experiments running at the same time, and I agree that the effects we observe are small, sometimes null. However, there is sufficient evidence of the reality of an anomalous effect that I am determined to continue, and work hard, because I am convinced that we are at the threshold of something big. Yes, we have problems, yes we have the reproducibility issue, yes we do not understand the mechanisms of the reaction. But this is quite normal in a field where so many aspects are new. The only thing that I know regarding the theory, is that it is a many body effect. At this point this is enough for me. We need more data to understand, and this is what we are doing. This field is yet for pionneers, it is not open to normal science. Hopefully soon, but I don't know when, and nobody knows. It is the most exciting research I have ever done, because it is so new, there is no pope or guru to tell us what is right and what is wrong. I feel very very free. What we need is time, and we have it, and willingness, and we have it. So let us enjoy this great historic time, and be part of it. This is history in the making. Jean-Paul Biberian PS: Enjoy life From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 12 20:32:08 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA31930; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 20:29:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 20:29:11 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <35FAF324.5BD0 skylink.net> References: <35F9AC43.4752 sunherald.infi.net> <35FAD332.4EBB@skylink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 17:28:06 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Anomalous force acting on Pioneer, Ulysses, Galileo probes Resent-Message-ID: <"QjZrb.0.ko7.5mp-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22286 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Robert - If this is a property of the space surrounding the solar system, then why do only the spacecraft appear to reveal it, and not the planetary orbits (Mars) as stated in the paper? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 12 21:19:51 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA09674; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 21:18:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 21:18:17 -0700 Message-ID: <003101bddecd$741f1d20$f048d3d0 default> From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Demonstrations and Allan's commnets Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 00:16:42 -0400 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: <"1vs3R1.0.4N2.8Uq-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22287 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Demonstrations, by their nature, selectively reveal and conceal information. Thus none can be trusted to display a whole truth. A tutorial demonstration in a university explicitly states the conditions and limitations, but is still not a whole truth, for it is tailored to show a phenomenon. A public demonstration to attract investors is tailored to produce an effect, not to show a whole truth. A more complete truth is reached in quiet, careful, systematic testing in a non-adversarial dialogue between an inventor and independent observers with the numerical outcomes of a series of measurements to be the substance of the dialogue, not polemics. To my knowledge, this has not happened in either the Meyer or Newman affairs. I do not wish to engage the Meyer affair, for I have no direct knowledge and I don't want to recirculate hearsay. I have studied Newman's book, seen some of the videos, and talked at length with Newman and Soule on the phone. I wrote a review of Newman's book for IE, which he viewed as fair and balanced. John Allan wrote: -------------------- >Sirs, >I would like to see these conversations between Newman and others video taped >and the video tapes made public this time. This is an appeal to polemics, and has nothing to do with the properties of Newman's machines. >There seems to be the need for slightly less partisan approach to communicating >innovators because the present form of confrontation does not seem to be >progressing the field. From both sides, it appears to end in head banging and >little else. This is not true. Jed, I think, fairly represented Newman's statements about the character of his forthcoming demonstration, as they are consistent with an approach taken in previous demonstrations. I and others in the Vortex community with some familiarity with electrical measurements and the general nature of Newman's machines have raised valid technical concerns about sources of errors in the proposed measurements. I don't know John Allan's technical qualifications in the field of electrical engineering, but if he were so qualified, he would be able to recognize the validity of the concerns and not dismiss them as "head banging". >The inventors gets to walk away having it reinforced that everyone is out to get >him or he was right that all his detractors are stupid; the investigators walking >away reassured threat they are the innocent party and that all inventors are >nuts. So they both profit but all the rest of us are left mystified - once the >entertainment factor has worn off. Surely there has to be a middle path of >communication between these two parties as Mike Carrell pointed out earlier >regarding business. This can happen. I'm not going to review the extensive and contentious history of Joseph Newman's battles with various testers. This is in his book, and summarized in my review in IE. It should be said that both Stefan Hartmann and Jean-Louis Naudin have conducted excellent studies of the early Newman machines, replicated in their own laboratories, and have seen evidence of complex and o/u operation. Stefan has posted on his Website oscillograms from Newman's files that were not in his book, which give added credibility to the machine performance. Jean-Louis shows many oscillograms which illustrate the complex behavior of the Newman machine. This is the kind of work that has needed to be done and they are both to be highly commended. The Harmann/Naudin work also illustrate the inadequacy of simplistic measurements of a device whose internal operation is as complex as Newman's. >I appreciate the inventors might have a lot of " charge " built up around their >work and the unveiling of it but hey are quite right to be affronted by 'gator >parties they do not know or have no reason to trust laying values on them. There is a confusion between opinions about how "inventors" and "investigators" and "investors" are supposed to act, and the objective dialogue mediated by systematic measurement. This is what the scientific method is all about. Nature is the referee, not the gallery in a shouting match. >There seems to be the need for some form of third party mediation service here >kind of like Relate - a marriage guidance service - for scientists, or some other >peacemaker force. >I find it vulgar that Jed Rothwell always brings everything down to money, power, >status and cant help suggesting that if he toned his language down even further, >he might succeed in helping these people more; perhaps money, power and status >not what is motives these individuals. I think you misread Jed. If any of these technologies are to change the future of mankind, then the issues of money, power, and status will be involved. They have in every case of major technological change and Jed has done a good job of documenting several cases. I know he cares deeply about the suffering in the third world and gets a bit testy when he sees inventors and scientists nursing their discoveries and failing to take the necessary steps to move toward replication and distribution. >Discovering what motivates these individuals and providing that would seem to be >the key to opening the lock, not offers of dosh or assaults on their personal >character. Inventors are self-motivated, driven, else they would not persist to the point of discovery. Joseph Newman must be cited as one of the most driven and persistent of the o/u investigators. It is in the transition between an effect and a product where the difficulty lies, and in many cases the inventor is his own worst enemy. I have commented on this before. And it must be said that entrepreneurs are not always motivated by greed, however much some would like to so paint them. There is often a driving vision which is manifested in an industrial enterprise with its attendant unintended consequences. Such could be said of Ford, Sarnoff, Eastman, Rockefeller, and others. Petty greed and irresponsible lust for power can as often be found in academics and bureaucrats as in industrial leaders. >It is a shame that neither the Rothwell/Mallove nor Puthoff/Little set-ups can be >seen as wholly independent safe third party testing facilities and are attacked >as being ultimately self-interested. The shame here is in John Allan's persistent misperception and misrepresentation of the positions of the two groups. Both have a charter to tests new energy technologies. Both want to find them. Both are sympathetic to the plight of the inventor. They have tested many such devices/processes as best they are able, and have reported their findings on Vortex and in IE. It is John Allan that is doing the attacking. >Of course, they cannot be free from such >accusations until they have some sort of public status, openness and >accountability. It seems also that this is one area in which a solution to this >recurring problem needs to be sought. Here, I think, John Allan loses objectivity. He has raised innuendo about these groups, rising out of his connection with the Meyer affair. John Allan is here the accuser and the judge, bringing an agenda all of his own. >With the atmosphere of paranoia surrounding any form of innovation, could this >ever be established? This is a generality. In particular, I have heard of no successful replications of Meyer's claims, nor allowed simple tests of his device. In contrast, Hartmann and Naudin have made significant progress in building Newman machines and confirming some of Newman's observations. I immediately state the caveat that I have spent less than an hour scanning their websites and haven't studied the information given. But it is better than anything I have seen in a long time. I might add that Stefan Hartmann has been a sincere student of the Newman technology for a number of years and has gained the trust and cooperation of Newman and Soule to the extent of acquiring some oscillograms otherwise unpublished. I might also add, that the theoretical thread which Naudin seems to be following is quite different from that which inspired Joseph Newman's original work. This is not surprising; the initial inspiration is not always the mature understanding, but that does not denigrate the original insight. >Too much good work has gone missing not to consider to working towards this. There are bonafide offers to test the Newman machine performance from Earth Tech and Cold Fusion Technologies. Neither is adversarial. It is John Allan's perception that is awry here. >I am stuck with how this might work out because corruption is endemic throughout >public, political and corporate life; but it would seem like we need some sort of >technological foresight department within a funded supranational not for profit >organization. >• Is any thought being given in this direction? John, you have no idea how much thought has been given to just this. But you have been attacking two outposts of this endeavor because they did not endorse Meyer's work. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 12 22:52:47 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA26692; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 22:51:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 22:51:48 -0700 Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 01:45:39 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Goofy RF Questions In-Reply-To: <19980912170104.7910.rocketmail send101.yahoomail.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"9BEsn2.0.vW6.qrr-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22288 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Anton, At this point it would be a VERY good idea to get a simple book on radio, and how it works..... same goes for simple introductory text or sections of texts about Electromagnetic effects in general. One does NOT have to be an engineer to grasp the general concepts. On Sat, 12 Sep 1998, Anton Rager wrote: > > > > ---"Kyle R. Mcallister" wrote: > > > > Anton Rager wrote: > > > > > 1 -- is it possible to have a material that can contain [via > > > reflection?] a propegating RF signal? I am thinking like a fiber > > > optic cable, only microwave RF instead of visable radiation. Regular > > > FO would not contain RF at those frequencies....right?! What > material > > > might? > > An FO cable IS a waveguide! > > Metal waveguides. Think of a waveguide as a fiber optic cable for > radio > > waves. I don't know if a nonmetallic waveguide is possible. > > > > > Wonder what happens if you introduce an RF signal into Cat5 > UTP. What is cat5 UTP ?? ..whoops already know -- you make an antenna! What about Coax or > STP? What is STP ? I'm thinking of alternatives to electrical signalling in cable > systems...use it like a fiber cable...only it is an RF waveguide for > another freq. > > > > 2 -- can RF directly reflect/refract the propegation of other RF > > > signals, or does it only cancel/amplify? > > These effects are strongly material dependent... > > Don't know. I don't see how it could refract other RF. It could > > interfere. At certain frequencies some plastics act as lenses for RF. > > I'm not an RF engineer -- so I am probably way off on some of these > concepts....bear with me. When two signals combine, a heterodyning > effect can occur [ie -- holography, BFO] -- is the resultant signal's > propegation always parallel to the reference, or can it be emitted in > a different direction? You really should read basic text FIRST.... then we can all have common ground.... Using lasers as an example...If the ref beam > and modulation beams meet somewhere overhead, could the resultant > beam's direction be changed? > This is material and power dependent ... same for RF... > > > > > #2 relates to possibly creating RF based > mirrors/refractors/divertors > > > for other RF signals. I'm mainly thinking high altitude 'RF > mirrors' > > > of some sort, that could reflect other RF signals to another 'RF > > > mirror', and on to another terrestial reciever? > > Some of the first RF and space work was just this ... a passive metallized ballon in space.... > > The ionosphere is sort of like a RF mirror. If you want to alter the > > properties of the ionosphere locally to benefit some > > experiment/transmission, you are doing what HAARP (high-frequency > > advanced auroral research project) is doing. (Yes, HAARP is real. You > > can even visit the facility) They project energy (a couple gigawtts I > > believe) into the ionosphere to alter its reflective/refractive > > properties over a small area. Is this what you are thinking of? > > Similar, but I was trying to avoid the modification of the ionosphere. > Really trying to think of a way to avoid sattelite communications for > over/beyond horizon communications. At different frequencies ... lower ones.... line of sight is not an issue.... tune your AM radio.... you will be able to pick up stations far beyond the horizon. > > > > > Kyle R. Mcallister > > > > > > > == > 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 Sat Sep 12 22:58:12 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA28340; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 22:57:27 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 22:57:27 -0700 Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 01:51:18 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Lucent Technologies breakthroughs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"VEbsc.0.jw6.7xr-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22289 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: see notes... On Sat, 12 Sep 1998, Rick Monteverde wrote: > Anton - > > > BTW -- is ACC still trying to market that > > transcap and other 'alien-tech' stuff? > > Wouldn't have a clue. "Transcapacitor" - that's got to be a Bearden > concoction, right? One of those, a couple of flux capacitors, and $5.50 > will get you a glass of beer in beautiful downtown Waikiki. > > Then again, this is way back in good ol' 1998. In 2010 it might be one of > those "if you bought $100 worth of Microsoft back in..." sort of stories. > The future looks kind of weird from here. And the beer will probably cost > $10 by then. > > I assume a transcapacitor ------------------------------------------------- changes its capacitance as voltage across some > leads changes? This is what a varactor tunig diode does..... found in many radios and TVs ... among other places.... ------------------------------ I'm at a loss as to what sort of capability that would give > us. A while back I was thinking that modulating the capacitance of a given > volume of matter (or space) might do something - send out 'dielectric' > waves of some sort, or possibly help to mix and detect such waves. Modulation of both capacitance and dielectric constant of certain materials is quite common. -------------------------- But then > I became convinced that those Hodowanecs were just detecting internal > thermal noise and such. That's pretty funny when you think of it - "these > noises are either little bursts of electrical activity driven by thermal > activity in the components, or maybe they're stars exploding." Come to > think of it, in a way even that's just a matter of scale! > > - Rick Monteverde > Honolulu, HI > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 13 03:27:21 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA06583; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 03:21:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 03:21:04 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 00:20:03 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Lucent Technologies breakthroughs Resent-Message-ID: <"kZUE81.0.nc1.Gov-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22290 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John - > This is what a varactor tunig diode does..... found in many > radios and TVs ... among other places.... I knew that variable caps were used for tuning circuits, but what I vaguely recall from hearing about this was the "transcap" was supposed to be for much higher capacitance, and perhaps speed(?). I'll have to revisit the ACC site - maybe there's something about it there. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 13 07:39:19 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA10880; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 07:35:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 07:35:32 -0700 Message-ID: <35FBD5D1.32ED skylink.net> Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 07:25:21 -0700 From: Robert Stirniman X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Anomalous force acting on Pioneer, Ulysses, Galileo probes References: <35F9AC43.4752 sunherald.infi.net> <35FAD332.4EBB@skylink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"kM1il3.0.tf2.pWz-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22291 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Rick Monteverde wrote: > If this is a property of the space surrounding the solar system, then why > do only the spacecraft appear to reveal it, and not the planetary orbits > (Mars) as stated in the paper? I don't know. What is suggested is this. The earth orbits primarily due to the electrogravitic force, plus a very small gravitomagnetic force which is repulsive. If we model the earth's orbit as being solely due to the electrogravitic force, we will end up with a very small underestimate of the magnitude of the electrogravitic field. As for Mars, I don't get from the paper how they can say that there is no apparent anomaly by looking at the Martian orbit. How can we possibly know the mass of Mars to this degree of accuracy -- except indirectly by knowing accurately its orbit and applying the same model of the electrogravitic field? Regards, Robert Stirniman From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 13 08:22:45 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA21676; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 08:18:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 08:18:22 -0700 Message-ID: <35FBE11D.F4E498EF verisoft.com.tr> Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 18:13:33 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Anomalous force acting on Pioneer, Ulysses, Galileo probes References: <35F9AC43.4752 sunherald.infi.net> <35FAD332.4EBB@skylink.net> <35FBD5D1.32ED@skylink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"1kjI-.0.WI5.z8--r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22292 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The anomaly could not be related to pushing forces originated by Sun by 1/r^3 or greater power of distance, because they will be immediately detected in closer orbits, like Mercury or the moon orbiting Earth. Therefore it should be a pull, weak and not be vanishing at long distance unlike 1/r^2, it could be 1/r^n, (n a real number less than 2, and may goes to negative values). Similar anomalies is observed on spiral galaxies, including Milky Way, the speed of rotation of stars on (around) the galaxy (orbital speed) does not drop as fast by distance from the center as described by Kepler law. If these are caused by the same effect, we can calculate their dependence on r. Regards, From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 13 09:41:11 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA17650; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 09:40:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 09:40:22 -0700 Message-ID: <35FC20EC.62D5 bellsouth.net> Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 12:45:48 -0700 From: Terry Blanton X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-BLS20 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Lucent Technologies breakthroughs References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"qdzZx3.0.dJ4.qL_-r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22293 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Rick Monteverde wrote: > > John - > > > This is what a varactor tunig diode does..... found in many > > radios and TVs ... among other places.... > > I knew that variable caps were used for tuning circuits, but what I vaguely > recall from hearing about this was the "transcap" was supposed to be for > much higher capacitance, and perhaps speed(?). I'll have to revisit the ACC > site - maybe there's something about it there. > > - Rick Monteverde > Honolulu, HI Rick, The transcap was a fantasy by one Mr. Jack Shulman, president of American Computer Company. He claimed he had in his possession lab notes from a Bell Labs technician which depicted devices taken from the crashed saucer at Roswell, NM in 1947. Jack claimed that the development of the transistor resulted from examination of the debris. The transpacitor was alleged to be able to detect device voltage levels with a resolution of thousandths of a volts resulting in a memory storage device which could provide terabits of storage with remarkable access speeds. It's all still there if you wanna read about it: http://www.accpc.com/roswell.htm I think it sold a lot of PCs for Jack! Enjoy! Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 13 10:54:33 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA09599; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 10:53:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 10:53:51 -0700 Message-Id: <199809131747.NAA05830 mercury.mv.net> From: "Ed Wall" To: Subject: Re: Speak to Mr Newman Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 13:54:08 -0400 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: <"FF1vE1.0.oL2.kQ0_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22294 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > John Allan wrote: > > > It is a shame that neither the Rothwell/Mallove nor Puthoff/Little > set-ups can > be > > seen as wholly independent safe third party testing facilities and are > attacked > > as being ultimately self-interested. Of course, they cannot be free > from such > > accusations until they have some sort of public status, openess and > > accountability. It seems also that this is one area in which a > solution to this > > recurring problem needs to be sought. > > What are you meaning by this? Should we do our experiments in a public park? Do you want us to have a staff member from National Public Radio on site for all work? We are not claiming omniscience in regard to Meyer, but we must have priorities in what we investigate. Investigation of an inventor's claims who is not willing to help us is not an intelligent choice. The solution you seem to seek is supposed to be found in the national laboratories, among other places, but with few exceptions, they do not sponsor such work. Perhaps you should complain to government officials. > I have not visited Mallove's lab, but if anything, his motives would be > even > stronger to report any positive results he sees. > > -- Bob Horst > I work at Mallove's lab and I can assure you that we see our survival as a business as contingent on the reality of useful anomalous results. We are also aware that we can make mistakes, and are very much committed to replication from as many interested and credible parties as possible. All I know of many claims being bandied about is that there is a lot of unnecessary emotionalized rhetoric and little hard, independently reproduced credible data that I have seen for Meyer or Newman. I do not know where the truth lies, but I am here to learn what we can, and can promise nothing but my best effort. We are not asking John Allan to believe us. We are asking scientifically inclined individuals to help us to confirm their interesting results and vice-versa. It is called empiricism. Ed Wall Lab Engineer New Energy Research Laboratory From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 13 11:47:02 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA22957; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 11:43:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 11:43:18 -0700 Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 11:43:11 -0700 Message-Id: <199809131843.LAA29200 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: Anomalous force acting on Pioneer, Ulysses, Galileo probes Resent-Message-ID: <"ab-bR2.0.cc5.591_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22295 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Rick Monteverde wrote: >> If this is a property of the space surrounding the solar system, then why >> do only the spacecraft appear to reveal it, and not the planetary orbits >> (Mars) as stated in the paper? I need to read it a second time, but they quoted a "constant" error, meaning that it was constant regardless of radius. There are a couple of things that are unique about the craft as compared to planets. 1) Planets orbit in circular orbits, whereas the craft are moving a long arcs with a substantial radial component. This means they are moving outward (or at times, inward bound) and thus they are changing in radius. If the intensity of gravitation is changing, slightly, with radius due to a secondary cosmological like effect (which btw could also be related to the dark matter effect as I anticipate external to galaxies), then this could be a clue. My only problem with it is that it is directed in the wrong direction for it to be a result of this component. The solar wind, *accelerates* dramatically out of our solar system. So we have a precident for anomalous accelerations of matter in the solar system when the gravitating mass is small, ie particles. But that acceleration is directed away from the sun, the opposite of this satelite acceleration. It is also much larger. 2) It could be that mass gravitates differently depending on it's view factor to deep space. I think this is what is going on with this particular effect. The direction is right, ie toward the sun. And it appears as a constant which is again correct. If you think of gravitation as a field, you are just closing your eyes as to what the physical mechanism is that is at work. Even gravitomagnetic field simply means I think there is some coupling like magnetisms field, but that it couples to all matter rather than just charged matter. That is still an admission that one doesn't understand what is going on from a physical point of view of what matter really is, and where the action originates from. When you work with ZPE like Hal does, then you have, IMO, one half of the entire mechanism. However, Hal, I think that the ZPE component should be able to explain this particular phenomena. Here is how. If I take a single sphere, and I consider it's view factor to deep space, then that clues me in to the amount of wave energy that can come in and hit that particular sphere. (sphere being a really crude model that is easy to discuss, but the correct geometry is a spherical standing wave, ie, the waveform created by a pulsating sphere in a compressible aether) Now, if you have just one sphere, then the view factor to the rest of the universe is unobstructed. But, if you have a large number of pulsating spheres all arranged in a spherical heap (ie, a planet is a bunch of atoms which we can crudely think of as spheres for the moment), then the spheres at the innermost regions are going to gravitate less than the spheres near the surface with a better view factor to deep space. (Note; this has nothing to do with being weightless at the center of the earth. What I am saying is that the gravitational thrust imposed by atoms a thousand miles down into the earth ought to be slightly less than the thrust imposed by atoms near the surface) Thus, a small object like the satelite, should gravitate slightly better than a large object where much of the matter has a poor view to deep space due to the overburden matter shielding it. It is interesting that the same thing happens in nuclear interactions. The amount of mass associated with helium is much less than the amount of mass associated with a single proton (measured per nucleon). Basically, this says that gravitation should be a function of size of the object. But for objects like the satelite, the filtering of ZPE is taking place between atoms, since the nuclei are very far apart. So the efficiency differential is sort of like the difference in intensity between a nuclear reaction and a chemical reaction. About a million fold reduction in intensity. Similar ideas along these lines have been attempts to try to prove that light elements gravitate differently than heavy elements. ie, by comparing the gravitation of an aluminum sphere vs a lead sphere. But in that case, you are dealing with different sizes of nuclei, and so the interaction should be very much greater. HMMMM??? I wonder what the mean sized atom is in the space craft vs in the earth? Si makes up a lot of the earth I think. And the satelite ought to have a lot of aluminum in it, Maybe there is no test there,??????????? I wonder what the mass ratio of the satelite, to the earth, would be? Maybe that would be worth checking into. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 13 13:03:31 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA08191; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 13:02:46 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 13:02:46 -0700 Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 13:02:38 -0700 Message-Id: <199809132002.NAA03709 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: Anomalous force acting on Pioneer, Ulysses, Galileo probes Resent-Message-ID: <"Helfd3.0.v_1.bJ2_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22296 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Also, a constant error is basically saying that G, for the satelite, is different from G for the planets. ie, G is not a constant. Remember that the three major attempts to determine G to high precision led to three different values for G. Two lied in one anothers error boxes, but the third value did not. So the three experiments did not agree that G is in fact a constant. Basically, what I was saying in the last post is that if atoms with different numbers of nucleons can gravitate differently, slightly, then objects with different overall masses should also gravitate differently, slightly. What you want to find are objects that have very much different masses. ie, perhaps an experiment where you take an Li sphere and an iron sphere, and then you attach them via a rod like a dumbell and put them in orbit. If one gravitates better than the other, then the dumbell should orient itself such that the better gravitating sphere is toward the earth. We know for a fact, that satelites do tend to orient themselves and if I recall, it is the heavy end that points toward the earth (I forget which way it was). Anyway, with the dumbell, you could do some interesting experiments, especially if you set the thing rotating and measure the strain as a function of orientation to a radial line from earth to the experiment (ie, a "vertical" line) Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 13 16:21:07 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA32063; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 16:20:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 16:20:20 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199809131843.LAA29200 Au.oro.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 13:17:55 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Anomalous force acting on Pioneer, Ulysses, Galileo probes Resent-Message-ID: <"t2FZY3.0.vq7.qC5_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22297 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Ross - > (Note; this has nothing to do with being weightless > at the center of the earth. What I am saying is that > the gravitational thrust imposed by atoms a > thousand miles down into the earth ought to be > slightly less than the thrust imposed by atoms near > the surface) This is mentioned on Woodward's site as being "spectator mass", wherenearby mass affects the way a given set of test masses react to one another gravitationally. Good point that could be relevant here, and one I don't think was mentioned in the report. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 13 16:34:02 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA03675; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 16:33:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 16:33:13 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <35FC20EC.62D5 bellsouth.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 13:30:45 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Lucent Technologies breakthroughs Resent-Message-ID: <"0Cmuz3.0.Fv.vO5_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22298 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Terry - > The transpacitor was alleged to be able to detect > device voltage levels with a resolution of > thousandths of a volts resulting in a memory storage > device which could provide terabits of storage with > remarkable access speeds. Right, now I remember from the interview. Too bad it's BS. It would be nice to have terabytes on some little glass sliver like in the cybernovels. Someday, I guess. Small compensation for $10 beer though... - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 13 18:33:07 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA09235; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 18:31:46 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 18:31:46 -0700 Message-ID: <35FC64E6.2C5A earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 19:35:50 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Storms: indications of CF reality 9.13.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"-X_ZR3.0.7G2.087_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22299 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Subject: Re: Swartz: Blue: Murray: Storms visit 9.8.98 Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 16:27:58 -0600 From: Edmund Storms To: rmforall earthlink.net References: 1 [Rich Murray: As a pragmatic skeptic, I've been asking this year if there are any currently active CF cells that demonstrate excess heat or transmutations. The results by McKubre, Miles, and Bush are years in the past. Storms mentions here that Miley found isotopic shifts in Cu in his CETI (Patterson) cells, so I will append here an excerpt of my simple analysis, from my Eight Miley Critique of July 21, 1997, 1997, of Miley's Run #8 data, from his First Preprint, that does not support this conclusion: I will take the space here to reiterate my after/before ratios in my First Miley Critique, [posted Dec 7, 1996, on George H. Miley, "Nuclear Transmutations in Thin-Film Nickel Coatings Undergoing Electrolysis," "Infinite Energy" magazine, # 9, July-August, 1996] calculated from his own data in Table 3 in his First Preprint, based on NAA analysis, given accuracy by him of +- 2 to 4 % in his July 20 post: [I have arranged the data by element, in order, and calculated the ratio, after/before. When helpful, I added natural abundance, the estimated SIMS count from a double-scale zerox of Fig. 3b., and possible same-mass interferences. Fig. 3b is labeled, "Typical low resolution SIMS scan after the run (average of microspheres in 3 layers in the cell).] I have added for the less common isotopes a second line with three abundance ratios, compared to the most common isotope: official, before, and after, along with the percentage change from official. #atoms per microsphere ratio, after/before before after 23-V50 3.54E10 70.1E10 19.8 23-Cr50? 399r 407r = + 2 % 408r = + 2 % 23-V51 1.44E13 28.6E13 19.9 24-Cr50 omitted, 4.4%, SIMS=~500, 23-V50? 24-Cr52 5.63E14 1070E14 190. 24-Cr53 6.27E13 1360E13 217. 8.82r 8.98r = + 2 % 7.87r = - 11 % 24-Cr54 1.53E13 255E15 167. 35.4r 36.8r = + 4 % 42.0r = + 20 % 26-Fe54 2.82E15 17.8E15 6.31 15.2r 15.2r = 0 % 15.2r = 0 % 26-Fe56 4.29E16 27.0E16 6.29 26-Fe57 1.01E15 14.1E15 14.0 42.5r 42.5r = 0 % 19.2r = - 55 % 26-Fe58 omitted, 0.28 %, SIMS=~1000, 28-Ni58? 27-Co59 1.23E14 19.9E14 16.2 100% 29-Cu63 3.57E15 116E15 32.5 29-Cu65 1.54E15 49.7E15 32.3 2.24r 2.30r = + 2.6 % 2.33r = 4.2 % 30-Zn64 1.42E15 16.7E15 11.8 28-Ni64? 30-Zn66 7.82E14 92.2E14 11.8 1.74r 1.82r = + 6.2 % 1.81r = + 4.1 % 30-Zn67 1.14E14 21.6E14 19.0 4.1%, SIMS=~10 11.9r 12.5r = + 7.4 % 7.73r = - 35 % 30-Zn68 5.08E14 130E14 25.6 18.8%, SIMS=~11 2.64r 2.80r = + 5.9 % 1.29r = -51 % 30-Zn70 1.64E13 124E13 75.6 0.6%, SIMS=~1, 32-Ge70? 81r 86.6r = +6.9 % 13.5r = - 83 % 47-Ag107 7.32E15 76.1E15 10.4 47-Ag109 6.68E15 61.4E15 9.2 1.07r 1.10r = +3 % 1.24r = + 17 % Of these 7 NAA elements, the V pair is typical, with after/before ratios astonishingly close at 19.8 and 19.9, giving absolutely no hint of changes in isotopic abundances, but suggesting strongly a 20-fold transfer of metal from one measured set of ten beads to another within the cell. This is obviously the same for Cu, while there is provocative data for Cr, Ag, and the specific isotopes: Fe57, Zn67, Zn68, and Zn70, considering the +- 2 to 4 % precision of NAA, given by Miley in his July 20 post. The most out-of-line isotope is 30-Zn70, with ratio 75.6, has only 0.6 % natural abundance, making its measurement more susceptible to dust contamination, and, shall we say, random glitches, as well possible interferences from 32-Ge70. Also, the SIMS count for 30-Zn-70 in Fig. 3b is about 1. The remarkably close match of some of the isotope pairs for V, Fe, Cu, Zn, and Ag is surprising and gratifying, and gives us more faith in the NAA measurements. The before isotopic ratio changes, compared to official values, range from 0 to + 7.4 %, largely confirming Miley's estimates in his post of July 20. The after ratios, compared to official values, range from 0 to + 20 to - 83 %. This data does not suggest isotopic shifts for V and Cu, but provides grounds for spirited debate about Cr, Fe, Zn, and Ag. [end of quote] Rich. Murray et al. I would like to share a few thoughts about the nature of debates about cold fusion before I actually engage in such a debate. It seems to me that at least two problems exist: we, i.e. skeptics and believers, differ in what data we accept and we differ in our methods used to apply logic to what is accepted. It is rather like two people who do not speak the same language trying to prove the existence of their God to each other. Much of the ranting associated with this effort comes from the frustration of not being heard. With these problems in mind, I will try to make a clear statement of my reasons for believing “cold fusion” or more exactly “chemically assisted nuclear reactions” (CANR) is real. In the process, I would hope to answer the good points made by Dr. Hansen and Dr. Blue. Before we can agree about the data we must first agree about how we judge claims of any kind. If the approach is to offset positive claims with negative results, then any debate about CANR is doomed from the start. Indeed, Edison would have never believed he could make a light bulb if he applied this approach to his early experimental results. New phenomenon are notoriously difficult to reproduce, otherwise they would have been discovered much sooner. Rather, the issue is why the effect is so difficult to produce. Granted such claims as N-rays had this problem and were later shown to be unreal. In this case, the reasons for false-positive results were found. In the case of CANR, the reasons are not as simple and would require a multitude of errors by many people while using a wide range of experimental environments. The issue is not whether a particular study is right or wrong; whether it answers all the questions; or whether it contains errors a clever person can propose, sometimes without any justification at all. The issue is whether the general pattern of behavior seen in a wide range of studies demonstrates the existence of a new phenomenon worthy of further study. To conclude that CANR is nonsense, a rational person would now have to reject a vast body of evidence. On the other hand, a nonrational person is free to simply state that the effect is impossible, hence all of the data must be wrong. In contrast, skeptics like to propose that it is the responsibly of the believers to prove all of these studies to be correct. This is an impossible requirement as they well know. I propose it is better to examine a few studies in detail. For example, you would have to argue that the state-of-the-art calorimeters used at SRI had errors which are not obvious and which would require some bizarre reasoning in an effort to propose their presence. You would have to argue that Tom Claytor has missed a prosaic source of tritium that dozens of experts at LANL have sought to identify in their personal effort to discredit the work. Simply hearing from some unnamed source that errors were found in his work is not sufficient for me and I would hope it would not be sufficient for Dr. Blue. Or you would have to show why heat and helium measurements made by both Dr. Miles and Dr. Bush, using different calorimeters and helium detection equipment, both show the same consistent relationship between helium and heat production, a relationship that is consistent with producing about 24 MeV/event. When a wide range of other experiments done by otherwise competent and respected people, each having a somewhat different experimental condition, all show a consistent behavior, then it seems to me a new phenomenon is strongly indicated. For those of you who would like to see a detailed justification of these statements, I suggest you read my review in J. Sci. Exploration 10, #2 (1996) 185 or the review coming out soon in Infinite Energy called “Cold Fusion Revisited”. Other information can be found in “The 7th International Conference on Cold Fusion, The Latest Word about Cold Fusion” in 21st Century Science & Technology, Summer 1998, page 15. I have neither the time nor space to go into the necessary detail here. I realize that not all readers of this debate have a complete knowledge of important experimental detail nor have they read and remembered facts that are counter to their personal bias. For example, Prof. Hansen points out that he challenged the work of Dr. Miles in a mainline journal (JPC). I would like to point out that when this paper was submitted to a different journal, it was rejected by several reviewers, including myself, because it contained information which was factually false or grossly distorted. I have written to Dr. Hansen and Dr. Jones on this subject without effect. Dr. Miles has been waging a battle with Dr. Jones and the editor of JPC to have a rebuttal published which was only recently accomplished. Anyone who wishes to see for themselves the different approaches taken by people proposing a new phenomenon and several skeptics of that claim can read the respective writings. Let me address another issue, the need to know all the answers in advance. Dr. Blue would like a clear definition of “cold fusion” before he and I can have a meaningful dialog. For me, the definition has grown to include any nuclear reaction that is influenced by or initiated by an unique chemical environment, thus the name “chemically assisted nuclear reactions”. At the present time we do not know how many and what kinds of nuclear reaction might qualify. We do know that tritium and helium can be produced, possibly by fusion of deuterium. In addition, there is evidence for numerous other nuclear reactions involving but not limited to the alkali earth elements and normal hydrogen. Unfortunately, many very important questions remain unanswered including just how these nuclear reactions can be initiated in the first place. I, for one, do not need all of these answers to believe in the existence of CANR. At the very least, I am willing to suspend my normal disbelief of many claims long enough to judge the work with an open mind. I expect no less of others. On the other hand, I recognize a tendency in myself, but especially in people in the academic end of science, to use their considerable cleverness to find fault in other people’s work. I see no benefit in carrying this approach to the level normally applied in well established science where a good basis for judgement is available. We simply do not know enough about this new field to say what is real and what is not. By prematurely dismissing the field, the general body of very vocal skeptics, not necessarily Dr. Hansen in particular, have denied the rest of us financial support needed to answer these questions. Dr. Blue would like a clear evaluation of the light water branch of the field. I too would like to see this. However, it is still too early to honor such a request. Of course, some of the elements found by Prof. Miley and others are caused by contamination. However, distortions in the isotopic abundance of some elements (copper for example) and the presence of other rare elements after an extensive cleanup treatment, leaves a doubt in my mind that all of the results can be explained this way. As for the presence of radioactivity, this is being looked for and has been found on several occasions (Robert Bush and Kevin Wolf, for example). It is indeed strange that radioactive products are not found more often. One explanation has been offered. Radioactive nuclei have excessive energy which was trapped during their formation. When elements are formed during the CANR process, no excess energy is available to be trapped in the nucleus - it being completely dissipated within the surrounding lattice by some, as yet, unknown process. I’m willing to accept this explanation for the time being in contrast to rejecting the claims as junk. As for the issue of overlooked error, I would like to make a few observations. Early in the history of the field, many possible errors were pointed out. Many good suggestions were made and these were incorporated into subsequent work. Now, people who have remained in the field have answered these and every other conceivable challenge. It serves no purpose to revisit these challenges. Consequently, I do not address every suggested error in my reviews. Instead, I try to acknowledge the major sources of error and show how they were addressed. If someone wants to make a useful contribution to the field, I suggest they acquaint themselves with the development of the field by reading some of these reviews. They might also ask questions without anticipating an answer that shows how incompetent believers in the field might be. It is a matter of style, not a matter of right or wrong. A large amount of science is wrong and we are all trying to sort this out. A hundred years ago, every scientist thought science had the correct picture. We can now see how wrong they were. A hundred years from now, the same will be said of us. Sincerely, Edmund Storms From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 13 21:42:42 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA01236; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 21:41:56 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 21:41:56 -0700 Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 21:41:48 -0700 Message-Id: <199809140441.VAA17687 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: Anomalous force acting on Pioneer, Ulysses, Galileo probes Resent-Message-ID: <"aL5-b2.0.qH.Iw9_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22300 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Ross - > > > (Note; this has nothing to do with being weightless > > at the center of the earth. What I am saying is that > > the gravitational thrust imposed by atoms a > > thousand miles down into the earth ought to be > > slightly less than the thrust imposed by atoms near > > the surface) > >This is mentioned on Woodward's site as being "spectator mass", wherenearby >mass affects the way a given set of test masses react to one another >gravitationally. Good point that could be relevant here, and one I don't >think was mentioned in the report. I have been looking for a lot of things like this because I know that the solar wind is accelerating out of the solar system. So you have single atom particles that are accelerating when they should be decelerating. You have small objects, spacecraft, that are being decelerated too much. And you have planets doing what you expect at each radius. Note that the space craft are changing in radii to a substantial degree, whereas the planets are not. So that is important. And also note that for single particles, they should be able to dance around more as they are buffeted by any turbulence in spacetimes topology, and due to any flow of aether out of the system. So what is happening is that small particles are more susceptable to change in rate of the flow of aether. whereas the larger objects are more susceptable to the wave interference / filtering mechanism of gravitation. (cosmological constant component of GR and gravitational component of GR respetively). Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 14 01:00:27 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA15634; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 00:59:27 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 00:59:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 08:49:40 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: SUppliers of ferromagentics Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Remi Cornwall Resent-Message-ID: <"kbSzx3.0.Cq3.UpC_r" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22301 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vo, Does anyone know of a UK supplier of lowe Cuire point ferromagnetics? I don't mind ordering from further afield. Usual things, address, telephone, fax, email, web. Thanks, Remi. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 14 03:02:59 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA24852; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 03:01:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 03:01:48 -0700 Message-ID: <01bd01bddfc5$b1f4be40$548f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Cc: "George" Subject: Re: ZPE/Mass-Energy Just Vacuum Geometry? Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 03:53:56 -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: <"Q6K4Z3.0.946.BcE_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22302 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Try this Hal, The Capacitance, C of the Vacuum 8.85E-12 farads/meter, and Potential V (dimensionless) are all that are required for the Material Universe based on String theory: E = mc^2 = 1/2CV^2 = 1/2q^2/C = 1/2q^2/2(pi)R*eo = kq^2/R where R is the length of the String-Circle. q = CV = 1.602E-19 Coulombs (a constant). Thus as C goes to zero, V becomes infinite. :-) For each "quark" or subatomic particle: R = n*Re*alpha^(+/-)n' where n' = 0,1,2.., Re is the radius of the electron (2.81E-15 meters) taken as a reference. Alpha = 0.00729729 and 1/alpha ~= 137. >From this, during the collision of an electron with a proton (or such) dE = h/dt the electron and proton lose energy (gain R) releasing this energy dE to the environs. But, since R MUST EQUAL n*Re*alpha^(+/-)n' the CV PROPERTY of the Vacuum Restores the Radius/Mass-Energy thus Creating the Material Universe, from Nothing? :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 14 04:11:48 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA02344; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 04:10:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 04:10:28 -0700 Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 12:08:16 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Integrity Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Remi Cornwall Resent-Message-ID: <"0X6Uk3.0.Ra.ZcF_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22303 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Integrity How to keep it:- . Don't bamboozle. . Don't scam. . Don't be a creep and grovel. . Be consistent, fair and logical; acknowledge other people's efforts, esp. when better. . Build bridges but understand that some places aren't worth building to. All peace making has its cut out point. . Be your own man. . Work hard. Don't do things by half measures. That way when you speak, they'll probably believe you. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 14 07:57:28 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA31034; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 07:52:50 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 07:52:50 -0700 Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:49:15 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Newman's motivation is irrelevant Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809141051_MC2-5957-2F38 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"GAtqZ1.0.ha7.1tI_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22304 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex; >INTERNET:josephnewman earthlink.net John Allan confuses the issue by writing: I find it vulgar that Jed Rothwell always brings everything down to money, power, status . . . . perhaps money, power and status not what is motives these individuals. . . . Discovering what motivates these individuals and providing that would seem to be the key to opening the lock, not offers of dosh or assaults on their personal character. I do not know what motivates Newman. During his lectures he expresses fury toward the patent office for denying patents; toward scientists for not believing his claims; and toward a company that he claims stole his ideas. He exhibits a motor made by this company which he says over-unity, although he has never demonstrated this claim. Perhaps he is motivated by a desire to make money. Perhaps he wants recognition for his scientific accomplishments. I know he is not a pure altruist. He is not like Benjamin Franklin, who passed up opportunities to patent the Franklin stove and bifocal spectacles because he wanted society to benefit from these inventions quickly. If Newman were a pure altruist, wanting nothing for himself, he would not care about the company that supposedly stole his design; he would encourage everyone to steal it. He would disavow any desire for a patent, and he would sell his machines at cost to people, and encourage them to build machines for their own purposes. Or he would sell the government all patents and rights to the machine for one dollar, which is what the scientists at Los Alamos did after WWII. (One of them actually demanded payment for several patents, which tied the bureaucracy in knots. He ended up accepting $0.20 per patent for intellectual property worth billions.) The important point is, Newman's motivation is irrelevant. Whatever he wants, money, recognition, a chance the help the human race, there is only way for him to accomplish his goal. He must convince scientists and engineers his claims are valid. He must perform a properly designed experiment with the correct instruments. The experiments he has performed for the last 20 years have been technically flawed. His statements about meters and mensuration are wrong. This is not a matter of opinion or debate or politics, although Allan tries to portray it as such. It is a cold, hard fact, attested to by every scientist and engineer who has ever seriously examined Newman's claims. As Hal Puthoff said: Assuming Joe might be right and have a great technology, it drives sympathetic researchers crazy to see him insist on attempting to prove it with measurements we know are faulty, when it would be so easy to do it right. Newman's claims are worthless (so far) because his experiments are flawed. He could fix the problems in a few hours, but he chooses not to. The problem cannot be lack of money or time: proper tests would be easier than the demonstrations Newman now performs. This is his fault and his failure, not ours. Allan tries to put the blame on both sides, but Newman alone is at fault. His claims will never be accepted because he will not lift a finger to do some simple tests that will prove his point -- or disprove it. Allan tries to shift the focus and the blame to *my* attitudes regarding money, power and status (subjects about which he knows nothing). My attitudes are irrelevant. I play no role in this affair. What I say has no effect on Newman. People like Puthoff and I can insist and insist, we can beg or plead with Newman, we can be nasty or nice. Nothing we say will sway him in the least. He will do exactly what he has always done. He will make the same mistakes until the end of his life. I am not this issue because nobody is asking Newman to come to me or to do me any favors. We are saying he should act in his own best interests to resolve technical questions about his machine. He does not need Mallove or Little. Many other qualified engineers would be willing to assist. I do not care what motivates Newman. I do not know why he wants to repeat sterile errors. But if I may speculate, I suppose he fears that a real test would show no excess energy, which would resolve the issue once and for all, and prove to him, his friends and family that he has devoted most of his life to a futile waste of time. That would be a tough thing for anyone to face. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 14 08:05:15 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA01931; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 07:59:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 07:59:16 -0700 Message-ID: <19980914143937.22697.rocketmail send104.yahoomail.com> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 07:39:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Anton Rager Subject: Re: Goofy RF Questions To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"-ggcn1.0.3U.1zI_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22305 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Thanks John, My apologies for the diversion -- next time I will research more first. Thanks for your patience. ---John Schnurer wrote: > > > > > > Wonder what happens if you introduce an RF signal into Cat5 > > UTP. > > > What is cat5 UTP ?? > Category 5 Unshielded Twisted Pair cable -- normal cable for LANs with Token Ring, ATM [some], and Ethernet/FastEthernet topologies. Cat3 is normal phone wire, Cat5 has more tighter twists and is good for longer distances and higher signalling rates. Both are basically several pairs of coated wire, with a protective jacket. The wire twists provide a sort of shielding effect. > > ..whoops already know -- you make an antenna! What about Coax or > > STP? > > What is STP ? > STP = Shielded Twisted Pair -- Generally used for IBM Token Ring installations several years back. Coated pairs that are twisted, and shielded by a coax-like jacket. == 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 Sep 14 10:17:23 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA22669; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:15:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:15:00 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980914121626.00d8f8b4 mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 12:16:26 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Newman's demonstration? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"7II072.0.5Y5.IyK_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22306 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: It's the 14th today. Did the demonstration happen on the 12th? Any reports? Scott "A more self-willed, self-satisfied, or self-deluded class of the community, making at the same time pretension to a superior knowledge, it would be impossible to imagine. They hope against hope, scorning all opposition, with ridiculous vehemence, although centuries have not advanced them one step in the way of progress." - Henry Dircks (1806-73) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 14 10:31:20 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA29974; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:28:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:28:33 -0700 From: Puthoff aol.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:26:29 EDT To: vortex-l eskimo.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Re: ZPE/Mass-Energy Just Vacuum Geometry? Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 78 Resent-Message-ID: <"uxE_J3.0.CK7.09L_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22307 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In a message dated 9/14/98 4:03:20 AM, you wrote: <> Of course! Hal From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 14 12:21:47 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA10260; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 12:19:57 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 12:19:57 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980914142137.00d9023c mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 14:21:37 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Incandescent W Summary Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"1vv3q.0.6W2.SnM_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22308 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I have generated a summary report for our recent Incandescent W campaign. It provides a fairly concise and coherent description of our observations. It may be found in the Experiments & Reports section on our web page or by proceeding directly to: http://www.eden.com/~little/Inc-W/Wreport.html 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 Sep 14 12:32:57 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA15348; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 12:30:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 12:30:28 -0700 Message-ID: <35FD7C81.8A1A6BA9 gold.globalcafe.co.uk> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 20:29:03 +0000 From: energy gold.globalcafe.co.uk (John Allan) Reply-To: energy gold.globalcafe.co.uk X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, energy@gold.globalcafe.co.uk Subject: Reply to Carell/Monteverde: Issues of Accountability, Newman, Puthoff et al. References: <199809140133.SAA10576 mx1.eskimo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"p8Owt.0.jl3.JxM_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22309 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Thank you Mr. Carrell for taking the time to post your lengthy critique to a comment that was at least in part a jocular provocation. But then many a true word is said... ============================================================ To reply to Mr. Monteverde, • The issue that I wish to emphasis is that of accountability. At present there exists no structure of accountability over practitioners and investigators in this field. An important issue which arose in my debacle with Mr. Jed Rothwell, was the lack of any professional body acting as a guide and monitor and an unwi llingness of individuals to act in accordance with the guidance of any professional body. I suggest that the field would be taken far more seriously if it was able to establish and be seen to sustain an accountable professional body to which authority the members and associates would adhere. Given the recent developments of the internet, public involvement in the debate and the increasing specialism in science, one would presume it to be an international body. It would be providential if lessens could be learned from the past and a truly alt ruistic institiute be formed. ============================================================= To reply to Mr Carrell, • The issue is nothing to do with the endorsement of any individuals work, something that could not be expected without positive findings. • I make no comments about Mr. Newman's work of which I know nothing. I only wish to stimulate a dialogue that might save Mr Newman the same sort of unprofessional and unaccountable attack that Mr. Meyer suffered, one that cost many other genuine profess ionals loss and inconvenience and signs of which we were already seeing. • With regards to Dr Puthoff and Mr. Little, can you inform me of which professional bodies they subscribe to and what is the nature of their business? I am confused over whether it is a private institution, a purely commercial affair or whether it has a ny public accountability? No slur whatsoever is made over their professional capabilities but, in recognising an admirably orchestrated rise to prominence and ability to shape and create opinion within a potent field, I state the obvious. • To whom are these individuals also accountable? ============================================================== Scientific status is a hotly pursued and valuable commodity, more so than even money which is subject to it. ============================================================== Given Dr Mallove's calls for the abolishment of the Department of Energy, one has to consider what sort of alternative might take its place. Suggesting the need for a new entity with specialism of and responsiblity over cold fusion and " new energy techno logies ", one which one presumes Dr Mallove will have some position, one finds one's self at an important formative stage of science's evolution. In my opinion, it is only too fair to wish to see established a set of reasonable ethics and expect reasonably professional behaviour in return to inquiry. Mr. Carrell, your humility, generosity and reasonable behaviour has up until now had one's respect but you are making statements about one's " perceptions being awry " when one has made no statements about Mr. Newman's work. One is on record for fully su pporting Mr. Newman's efforts and making no question to the veracity of his claims until one has completed a full and impartial replication under his invitation and guidance. I am no James Randi, nor do I possess clairvoyant abilities. • With regards to an accusation of " polemics ", I must caution you again. The magazine you write for holds digital, printed and video evidence that is not being made public. I have requested them to ensure that, in your words, " a more complete truth is reached in quiet, careful, systematic " manner that establishes that " no n adversarial dialogue between an inventor and ... observers was carried out. Not polemics. " Your editor has refused this. Equally so, you state that these observers were " independent " and yet this is not established. It would appear that some self interest or self elect authority ruled outside of any professional accountable system. One sees a situation arising in which the same individuals are active, is it to much to ask that their actions are recorded and made available for public scrutiny? I would like to establish the truth of such situations. You say that you do not wish to " recirculate hearsay " and yet you state that no findings exist to support Meyer and Newman. In the case of the former, we have the findings of the US Patent Office, contracting with NASA and DOD, and my own statement of supportive findings, why do you ignore them? I would appreciate hearing Mr. Soule's opinion on whether or not they also exist for Mr. Newman's work. • With regards to "head banging", very reasonable logic can be used to incite with intent to create strong reactions as a " wind up ". This is often used as a technique to discredit an individual, the incitor coming out with ground to make all sort of in criminations afterwards of an " I told you so nature ". • With regard to " Nature [being] the referee, not the gallery ", one was not aware that this august journal was involved in this field but since the James Randi affair over Benveniste's work - which is still erroneously refute in the broadsheets and else where - it would be possible to question their authority. One note's that on his retrial Sir John Maddox what was the most important paper published during his tenure. His answer was the Crick and Watson bootleg. Asked whether under the present climate of peer review would it be publish today, Sir John said of course not. Sending in unqualified debunkers to review leading edge and extremely subtle or potent science is not supportable. • With regard to Mr. Rothwell's personal motivation, one can only make judgement upon the evidence of his abilities that he presents to us. In the opinion of a number of professionals they are dubious and objectively - with regards to law, science and co mmerce - dangerously incomplete for someone in a position of influence. As the Lord said, " The poor will always be with us ". Steering an innovation within energy science through the minefield implications of vested interest, bureaucratic incompitance, National Security, DoD funding, dubious personal, legal and media attack s is something of which he has no experience. It is an experience that only a few have. All of us should be cautioned from presuming we know best how to do it, like children sticking our hands inside dangerous machinery. There only way I know of how to do it, is to do it properly, within professional guidelines. And then take extra legal precautions. The first step would be to create some sort of international supportive professional body made out of reputable experts a nd despite almost a decade of activity I do not see this happening. Instead we see gold rush fever, privateers out to carve up an Empire, gunslingers at the bar and so on. The actions of profiteers. • With regard to one's " persistent misperception and misrepresentation " and " attacking ", " loss of objectivity " and " agenda ", one's intent is clear stated. To see establishment an accountable professional body and as part of this, make a full inve stigation of the events leading up to the sabotage of the House of Lords case. The latter is a useful case study and one is still being obstructed from doing so. At law, something is what it is, not what any protagonist may claim or intend it to be. Are either of the laboratories you mentioned not-for-profit organisations or accountable to anything other than their protagonist's ambitions whatever they may be? D r Puthoff has his ambition and collective abilities of supporters, Dr Mallove his capabilities and the influence of his supporters. Again, we have to start from first principles just as in the Meyer case. All of our activities exist within some context. At present it is unstated and therefore open to abuse. The solution would be to resolve it legally. Any aversion to this would raise questions to the objectors intent surely? Just as the continued refus al to share information would. Dr Puthoff makes statements without any experimental evidence and tries to form public and media based opinion on the basis of thse statements, for what his dollars are worth. ============================================================= Personally, I am the Supreme President of the Intergalactic All Energy Science Institute ( privately funded by friends and political supporters ) and Editor-in-Chief of its peer review journal. I care deeply about all the peasants within my fiefdom excep t for religious nutters ( but am very keen to do business with oil companies and multinational corporation despite any malicious rumours being circulated about their business ethics and dealings with said peasants ). I am therefore a leading intergalactic expert on the subject and a very good person. It says so on my web site and I do not need professional or scientific experience in the field because I have been here for years. But you would not buy a used hydrogen powered car from me, would you? • Do you understand the point being made? ============================================================ To end on a general point, given my prior experiences and the continued implications of such unaccountable actions, seeing evidence of fictious reporting on numerous occasions of more than one scientist, being confronted by gross exaggerations in the plac e of measure dialogue, having one's statements twisted or ignored, being told to " bugger off ", having written and vrbal agreements tossed aside and so on, is not an encouraging sign of professionalism nor the start of relationships of trust. I can present my sources and findings on any allegations made as would be expected by a professional body. Life is serious. It is my opinion that the sort of interested professionals exist that could sustain such a body, if it was thought the best way to go forward rather than act within the bounds of other established peer review structures. • Mr Carrell, what work has been done towards this? Sincerely, John Allan energy gold.globalcafe.co.uk From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 14 12:40:48 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA18083; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 12:37:14 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 12:37:14 -0700 Message-ID: <35FD6351.2231 earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:41:22 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Blue: Storms: unconvincing CF indications 9.14.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"anZ7D2.0.SQ4.f1N_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22310 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Subject: Re: Storms: indications of CF reality 9.12.98 Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:56:03 -0400 (EDT) From: "Richard A Blue" To: rmforall earthlink.net > > Before we can agree about the data we must first agree about how > we > judge claims of any kind. If the approach is to offset positive claims > with negative results, then any debate about CANR is doomed from the > start. Indeed, Edison would have never believed he could make a light > bulb if he applied this approach to his early experimental results. New > phenomenon are notoriously difficult to reproduce, otherwise they would > have been discovered much sooner. Rather, the issue is why the effect > is so difficult to produce. Granted such claims as N-rays had this > problem and were later shown to be unreal. In this case, the reasons > for false-positive results were found. In the case of CANR, the reasons > are not as simple and would require a multitude of errors by many people > while using a wide range of experimental environments. > > The issue is not whether a particular study is right or wrong; > whether > it answers all the questions; or whether it contains errors a clever > person can propose, sometimes without any justification at all. The > issue is whether the general pattern of behavior seen in a wide range of > studies demonstrates the existence of a new phenomenon worthy of further > study. To conclude that CANR is nonsense, a rational person would now > have to reject a vast body of evidence. On the other hand, a > nonrational person is free to simply state that the effect is > impossible, hence all of the data must be wrong. In contrast, skeptics > like to propose that it is the responsibly of the believers to prove all > of these studies to be correct. This is an impossible requirement as > they well know. I have to say that Edmund Storms is confusing an approach that may be appropriate for a preliminary investigation of a new phenomena with what is proper scientific proceedure for resolving seeming conflicts in an established data set. I agree that when I assert that CANR is largely nonsense, I am suggesting that a "vast body of evidence" should be rejected. Of course it is somewhat shocking that such a body of data should have accumulated by people with the best of intentions and, presumably, skills adequate for the measurements they have attempted. I would suggest that one reason we face this unfortunate set of circumstances is because Edmund Storms, and others have been rather unwilling to make critical judgements on any of the claims made for CANR, prefering to assert that there is some "vast body" of evidence to support their position. However, it has been relatively easy to spot numerous specific examples where the quality of the evidence simply does not support the claims that are being made. The fact that Edmund Storms has never willingly attempted to sort out just which claims are bogus is one reason that we cannot at this time actually list any characteristic behaviours that should serve to identify these phenomena. If, instead, we simple stick to blanket acceptance of every positive result and attribute every negative result to some mysterious experimental failure, nothing about CANR can be deduced from this mix of results, because there are too many contradictions. The method that Storms appears to advocate is precisely what the advocates have been doing for nine years, and I believe the lack of progress speaks loudly to the failure of that approach. > > I propose it is better to examine a few studies in detail. For > example, you would have to argue that the state-of-the-art calorimeters > used at SRI had errors which are not obvious and which would require > some bizarre reasoning in an effort to propose their presence. You > would have to argue that Tom Claytor has missed a prosaic source of > tritium that dozens of experts at LANL have sought to identify in their > personal effort to discredit the work. Simply hearing from some unnamed > source that errors were found in his work is not sufficient for me and I > would hope it would not be sufficient for Dr. Blue. Or you would have > to show why heat and helium measurements made by both Dr. Miles and Dr. > Bush, using different calorimeters and helium detection equipment, both > show the same consistent relationship between helium and heat > production, a relationship that is consistent with producing about 24 > MeV/event. When a wide range of other experiments done by otherwise > competent and respected people, each having a somewhat different > experimental condition, all show a consistent behavior, then it seems to > me a new phenomenon is strongly indicated. For those of you who would > like to see a detailed justification of these statements, I suggest you > read my review in J. Sci. Exploration 10, #2 (1996) 185 or the review I believe we have here some significant misrepresentations of the facts governing the data which has accumulated. For example, in the case of the SRI calorimetry there are two significant truths which Edmund Storms overlooks. I suggest that there is an important clue concerning these data that is revealed in the first data which McKubre presented at Como in support of what was then known as cold fusion. I invite anyone to return to that data and explain the clear relationship between input current and heat output which characterized that first "successful" run. Simply stated the heat output appears to be roughly proportional to the input current which, as it happens, was varied widely during the course of the run. I have seen lots of other data from other SRI runs and other, independent investigations of the same phenomena, and I think it safe to say that no other data exhibits this behavior. Is that fact not grounds for suggesting that there is something wrong here? It seems to me quit logical to suggest that there was crosstalk between the high-level signal associated with the cell current and the low-level signal of the temperature readout. I would cast that data aside. A second truth about the SRI results is that the magnitude of the claimed effect diminished over the course of time as the experiments, we presume, were refined. McKubre also acknowledges a rather low success rate in achieving positive results, so there is ample opportunity to generate the desired result by post-selection. It would be instructive to see a complete data set for some of the extended investigations. With respect to the Miles-Bush evidence for a correlation between detected helium and excess heat, there are again some obvious questions that have legitimately been raised. Particularly in the initial experiments the experimental protocols were clearly flawed. Gas samples were accumulated and transported over considerable distances with conditions unspecified but clearly different for control samples than for the samples for effect. Since it is obviously more difficult to do mass analysis for 4He as a background in deuterium than it is for a sample that contains no deuterium, I would say that those data did not, in fact, have appropriate controls to establish that the observed helium was actually the result of CANR. Then we come to the question of calorimetry as employed by Miles and Bush. Miles, in fact, did investigate numerous error sources; and surely Edmund Storms gives him credit for having recognized error sources that have not, perhaps, been dealt with in other similar measurements. However, I suggest that Miles made one overriding error in the way in which he analyzed his own results -- misinterpreting the very error sources he demonstrates. This comes down to a question of proper error analysis as it relates to a determination of the calorimetry constant for the Miles-Bush data. This is not, I would suggest, done properly with the result that the precision of the measurements is overstated. A correct analysis likely washes out the claims for excess heat and, obviously, the correlation to helium production. Without getting bogged down in the details, let me just say that there cannot be six different calorimeter constants, but only one that is exactly appropriate to the conditions of the actual measurement for effect. Thus six different measurements to determine the said constant cannot be treated as repetitions of the measurement of a single quantity. Those six determinations of the constant demonstrate that there is a problem with the technique. Using the average with a reduction by reciprical root 6 of the error is hiding the problem. Of course one cannot overlook the fact that the Miles-Bush results have not been replicated. In fact, don't we have in the data set an experiment that says the helium produced is not released from the palladium at all, so Miles-Bush must have been seeing helium from some other source? At some point, I believe, we do have to address the question as to whether CANR, however Edmund Storms would describe it, can be integrated into our general knowledge base in a meaningful way. How many miracles are we going to accept, before we just flat out suggest that there is something rather sick about all of this? It is not as though the question of CANR has never been investigated. There is a body of established knowledge about the couplings between nuclear and atomic degrees of freedom. There are know effects, measured magnitudes, and theoretical explanations for a body of evidence that is just as vast as what Edmund Storms has in mind. Initially, the notion of chemically-induced cold fusion was not so far- featch as to merit instant rejection. However, things have changed in ways that are, quite frankly, off the wall. First there is the question of whether ordinary water can induce the same effect as does heavy water. It should not be too difficult to make the point that a deuteron and a proton have dramatically different nuclear wave functions, yet Edmund Storms attaches no great significance to that difference, it seems. Come on, Edmund! The ultimate absurdity of the case for CANR becomes apparant when we come to the "massive nuclear transmutations". Here I simply assert that no one has guts enough to even write down a reaction process that could possibly make sense. At this point CANR has degenerated to something that is indefensible. So far no one has stepped up to defend it in any real sense. Perhaps Edmund Storms is prepared to explain the role of statistics in a 37-body reaction or something of that sort, but somehow I rather doubt it. He is just hoping that no one notices some rather obvious problems here. Just how do you make silver from nickel? Subject: Re: Biberian: CF a pioneer science 9.12.98 Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:08:47 -0400 (EDT) From: "Richard A Blue" To: rmforall earthlink.net > detection and imaging of hot spots? Blue suggests that optical > spectroscopy can prove He production: can this be achieved at the level > of detecting single photons? What if the putative many body reactions > are truly exotic, producing realms of neutrinos, carrying invisibly away > most of the momentum and energy? Perhaps gross calorimetry is largely > irrevant and ineffective. Rutherford didn't need calorimetry to prove > the minute size and immense density of the atomic nucleus about 1914. > Any replications attempted of the Russian biological transmutation > results?] There are techniques capable of detecting helium at the level of a single atom in an arbitrary gas mixture! I would certainly recommend that anyone attempting to prove that helium is produced by CANR first read what Rutherford has to say on the subject. If Miles and Bush had done a little reading on the subject of helium penetration through assorted materials they might not have been quite so hasty to proclaim that they were seeing d + d -> 4He with no neutrons or gammas emitted. Speaking of use of correlations, I would suggest the lack of neutrons and gammas is every bit as significant as any supposed excess heat production. Dick Blue From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 14 14:30:53 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA27444; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 14:28:56 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 14:28:56 -0700 Message-ID: <35FD9032.184C6558 gold.globalcafe.co.uk> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 21:53:07 +0000 From: energy gold.globalcafe.co.uk (John Allan) Reply-To: energy gold.globalcafe.co.uk X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Mr Rothwell's comments on Newman's " worthless claims " re:Newman's motivation is irrelevant References: <199809141940.MAA19374 mx1.eskimo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"6oZYV1.0.Xi6.NgO_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22311 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: With regards to Mr Rothwell's comments on what he says are Newman's " worthless claims ", All I understand is that Mr Newman has been refused a patent by the regularly unjust US Patent Office. Without a patent, he would never attract the sort of financial support necessary to establish an industry capable of producing production models of his own design. Given that a man has a right to profit from his own intellectual property and up to the point of reasonable doubt can be assumed to be the best person to continue the development of his own technology, I can understand how traumatic that would be. Scientist within the academic system have a very different priviliged position to one working without it and one cannot take seriously reports of what happened 50 years ago or more. Monkeys on the grinder were promised to be fed for life back inthose day s. Not so much now which is why patent rights amongst students and academics is a hot issue these days. People still believed their government acted solely in the public's favour and would live up to its promises and constitution back then, filled as they were with nationalist fervour. It would be encouraging to hear of such charitable efforts in recent times or of your own charitable efforts. What were the patents for? • I am more interested to read that les than 15% of the work done in Los Alamos becomes public knowledge. Regardless of what claims Mr Newman can or cannot support his work raises an issue of primal importance again about the context within which we work. It is first principles again. If the Patent Office of the United States of America is shown to be neither just nor objective in a number of associated examples, something should be done about it first before more time and effort are wasted throwing good work against it. One individual cannot be expected to achieve this. This is the job of a professional body. I understand the last Reagan appointed chief was the chairman of an oil company, not that this would influence policies over energy patents. Who is in charge now? As to your attitudes, although one is grateful at least that they have ben toned down, you continue to make them evident in the manner at which you express yourself, go about resolve such issues, involving yourself in other's affairs and refusing to make public information. Your business and legal advice is evidently not complete and should not be followed. Perhaps these issues are more complex than you are willing to accept and you need to express yourself differently because you are doing yourself no favours. I appreciate your frustrations but they should be worked out elsewhere of your professional interests. Regards, John Allan ====================================================================== Note: One has approached Mr Rothwell privately and in a consolatory tone off line and attempted to resolve our differences but he refuses to respond in kind. I am forced to continue this discussion publicly but only within the greater context. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 14 15:55:50 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA30913; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 15:48:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 15:48:03 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <35FD7C81.8A1A6BA9 gold.globalcafe.co.uk> References: <199809140133.SAA10576 mx1.eskimo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 12:45:33 -1000 To: Vortex-L From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Reply to Carell/Monteverde: Issues of Accountability, Newman, Puthoff et al. Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id PAA30856 Resent-Message-ID: <"BQgSK1.0.oY7.YqP_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22312 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John - You wrote: > To reply to Mr. Monteverde, > > > • The issue that I wish to emphasis is that of > accountability. I believe I did not write that. You have me confused (again) with someone else. If you believe I did, please produce a copy of the entire message from which that quote was supposedly taken. Otherwise, please pay more attention to what you are doing, and stop misquoting me. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 14 16:22:10 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA04532; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:20:46 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:20:46 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: A SED based CF explanation Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 23:12:49 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <35fd9874.501166128 mail-hub> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"CzxXJ2.0.k61.CJQ_r" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22313 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I am not aware of the following proposal having been previously put, however if it has been, then please speak up. This hypothesis does three things for CF. 1) It explains why a lattice is mandatory. 2) It provides for a force that induces fusion. 3) It explains the lack of neutron production. Consider the following two deuterons, interacting with the ZPE, by alternately absorbing and emitting photons: (indicated by the arrows) <------- A --------> <---------B---------> When A and B are at a fixed distance from one another for a "long" period (this can happen in a lattice), their emission and absorption can get into sync. for photons with a wavelength correlated to the distance between them. IOW A emits a photon that travels to B and is absorbed, then is reemitted by B, and travels back to A where it is also absorbed etc. ad infinitum. Careful examination shows that this leads to A and B between them being able to share a single photon where previously a pair of photons would have been involved (for independent deuterons moving randomly with regard to one another). This means that one photon of the previous pair is released to the environment as a real photon. This process results in an increase in entropy for the system, as a consequence of the release of the "spare" or "free" photon. The mass of the deuteron pair (A,B) is also reduced as a result of the release of the "spare" photon. Another consequence is that both deuterons now have a larger energy exchange with the environment outside of the pair, than they do between them. This results in a compressive force that tends to push them together (I think this is in fact the Casimir force). As they get closer and closer together, the energy of the "spare" photons increases, resulting in the loss of ever more mass. As they approach one another, the chance of tunnelling increases. If they tunnel before too much mass is lost, then after fusion the T + H branch is still available, and occurs. If too much mass is lost first however, then no normal deexcitation branch is left open, and consequently tunnelling doesn't happen (that's right cause and effect are intimately linked). Instead they simply continue to lose photons and mass right up to the point where they have shed all the excess and they combine directly into an alpha particle in its ground state. All excess mass has then been lost as photons at a whole range of frequencies (Perhaps someone, better versed in the maths of SED than I, can come up with some form of distribution for the energy of the photons involved?) Neutrons are not usually produced, because the neutron channel requires that most of the mass still be available, which in turn implies that tunnelling occur from a great distance, which in turn is highly unlikely. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 14 18:40:16 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA25548; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 18:39:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 18:39:25 -0700 Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 21:34:37 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Newman's patent strategy / UL web page Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809142138_MC2-596F-C617 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"7O7mk1.0._E6.CLS_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22314 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex John Allan wrote a message about Newman and patents which I do not understand. He mentioned Los Alamos and several other disjointed topics. Anyway, he says: All I understand is that Mr Newman has been refused a patent by the regularly unjust US Patent Office. . . . Without a patent, he would never attract the sort of financial support necessary to establish an industry . . . Newman should follow my strategy to overcome his problem with the Patent Office. He should file for a patent now, and reveal the details of it under non-disclosure agreements. He should perform convincing public demonstrations with a proper configuration and instruments. The test he says Ray-o-vac observed would be fine. A growing number of scientists, engineers and patent attorneys will be convinced the machine is real. Eventually a top-notch attorney will take his case on consignment (or whatever lawyers call it). The attorney will show up at the Patent Office armed with hundreds of affidavits from leading laboratories testifying that the machine is real, and a patent will soon be granted. The first step is to establish broad credibility. On other subject, the other day I mentioned the Underwriter's Laboratory certification process. Before Newman or anyone else will be allowed to sell machines in the U.S. commercially, he will have to reveal every detail of the machine to Underwriter's Laboratory. You can learn about the application process at their web site, www.ul.com, which makes interesting reading. The rules are stringent. No doubt they have prevented countless deaths and injuries. Here are some of the requirements: List all components and materials used in the product including manufacturers' names, catalog numbers, sizes, ratings, etc. Include wiring diagrams illustrating any electrical or electronic circuitry, design drawings and/or photographs of the product, if you think they'll help the UL project engineer understand its design, construction, and/or operation. Identify any alternate materials, alternate components, or alternate arrangements of parts you intend to use in the future. This will help reduce test work, time and costs later, when the alternates are used in the product. Product samples. The UL letter that accompanies your application will indicate the number of product samples we need in order to conduct the investigation . . . - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 14 20:20:07 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA07393; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 20:18:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 20:18:51 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980914230919.00826100 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 23:09:19 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Newman's patent strategy / UL web page In-Reply-To: <199809142138_MC2-596F-C617 compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"GptjH2.0.3p1.QoT_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22315 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 09:34 PM 9/14/98 -0400, Jed Rothwell incorrectly wrote: >On other subject, the other day I mentioned the Underwriter's Laboratory >certification process. Before Newman or anyone else will be allowed to sell >machines in the U.S. commercially, he will have to reveal every detail of the >machine to Underwriter's Laboratory. This is INCORRECT. There is no longer a monopoly on this. Underwriters Lab OR DSG (Dash, Straus, and Goodhue) both certify. Dr. Dash, and Mr. Straus have both worked with us at JET Energy Technology. JET Energy Technology remains open to evaluate cf and o/u devices which qualify, and JET has a history of publication of some of this work in peer-reviewed journals. Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 14 20:31:39 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA12363; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 20:29:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 20:29:04 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980914231938.00826940 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 23:19:38 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: re: Jed on Patents in o/u or cf In-Reply-To: <199809142138_MC2-596F-C617 compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"xg9iM.0.113._xT_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22316 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 09:34 PM 9/14/98 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: >John Allan wrote a message about Newman and patents which I do not understand. >He mentioned Los Alamos and several other disjointed topics. Anyway, he says: > > All I understand is that Mr Newman has been refused a patent by the > regularly unjust US Patent Office. . . . Without a patent, he would > never attract the sort of financial support necessary to establish an > industry . . . > >Newman should follow my strategy to overcome his problem with the Patent >Office. He should file for a patent now, and reveal the details of it under >non-disclosure agreements. He should perform convincing public demonstrations >with a proper configuration and instruments. The test he says Ray-o-vac >observed would be fine. A growing number of scientists, engineers and patent >attorneys will be convinced the machine is real. Eventually a top-notch >attorney will take his case on consignment (or whatever lawyers call it). The >attorney will show up at the Patent Office armed with hundreds of affidavits >from leading laboratories testifying that the machine is real, and a patent >will soon be granted. What planet are you on, Jed? How many patents do you have? How many in cold fusion or o/u? And for the denominator: How many have you filed for? From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 14 20:58:52 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA24504; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 20:58:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 20:58:09 -0700 Message-ID: <35FDE5AF.1772 keelynet.com> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 22:57:35 -0500 From: "Jerry W. Decker" Reply-To: jdecker keelynet.com Organization: KeelyNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: KeelyNet DallasTexas.net CC: zpe pdq.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Vortex / Venturi related to Countdown? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"75WW51.0.o-5.GNU_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22317 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Folks! I recently received a Johnson Smith Catalog 941-747-6645 in Bradenton, Florida and on page 50 was this interesting line drawing advertising a venturi type water pump. It struck me as possibly being related to the zpe pdq.net countdown claims so here is the text; New! Mini Pump drains over 200 gallons per hour - no electricity needed. Uses ordinary water pressure to drain swimming pools, basements, aquariums, hot tubs, boats & more. Simply attach tiny pump between two garden hoses. When tap is turned on, water pressure sucks up waste water and carries it away. Even if your power is out, you can still drain a flooded basement. Tough, lightweight polypropylene won't rust or corrode. No moving parts to break down or wear out. Made in US. Hoses not included. JV-20411 Mini Sump Pump - $10.98 ======================= The picture shows a plastic hourglass looking thing where water comes in on one side, goes through to the center of the hourglass and on exit, it has an additional suction tube which sucks up the water and carries it out from the venturi suction. Now, I know this isn't a big deal and some of us have either seen or worked with the venturi effect. Some industrial drum vacuums work with compressed air to lift fluids and dirt using such a venturi nozzle. However, I just thought it was neat that you could buy one of these little plastic thingies with water hose fittings molded into it if you wanted to experiment with it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming any o/u or anything particularly anomalous with it, just that it might tie in with the zpe pdq.net claim of being able to produce o/u from a vortex. Perhaps there is an optimum angle (as in Schaubergers KUDU antelope horn angle) that these guys have discovered and MODELLED in a dynamic fluid flow system. We have the Hilsch/Rankin vortex tubes which split air into hot and cold flows when fed IN through a center tube and OUT through either side of a dual spiral. We have the venturi which feeds IN from one side straight OUT through to the opposite side and pulling additional media IN (air, water, whatever) with it by the venturi suction. I did a search on venturi power, vortex power, vortex pump and didn't find much that fit except for these two odd ducks though they don't really shed any light on how power could be extracted. Superconducting & cryogenic rotor cooling system; http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?patent_number=4779017 Vortex crop circle making machine......; http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?patent_number=3828531 Like Norm, I too think there is something going on with vortexes, hot and cold and inertia of mass in motion. Perhaps you might like to buy one of those tubes for $10.98 to play with. Catalog request - 941-747-6645 FAX orders - 941-746-7896 Voice orders - 941-747-2356 -- Jerry Wayne 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 Mon Sep 14 21:17:06 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA30955; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 21:16:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 21:16:21 -0700 Message-ID: <35FDE9D9.CE0A3806 GroupZ.net> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:15:21 -0400 From: sno X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5b1 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jdecker keelynet.com CC: KeelyNet DallasTexas.net, zpe@pdq.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Vortex / Venturi related to Countdown? References: <35FDE5AF.1772 keelynet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"vs1hY1.0.VZ7.KeU_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22318 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: You can buy these at many pet shops, used to drain fish tanks.... I use one to empty my boats all the time...work great... steve opelc Jerry W. Decker wrote: > > Hi Folks! > > I recently received a Johnson Smith Catalog 941-747-6645 in Bradenton, > Florida and on page 50 was this interesting line drawing advertising a > venturi type water pump. It struck me as possibly being related to the > zpe pdq.net countdown claims so here is the text; > > New! Mini Pump drains over 200 gallons per hour - no electricity > needed. > > Uses ordinary water pressure to drain swimming pools, basements, > aquariums, hot tubs, boats & more. Simply attach tiny pump between two > garden hoses. When tap is turned on, water pressure sucks up waste > water and carries it away. Even if your power is out, you can still > drain a flooded basement. Tough, lightweight polypropylene won't rust > or corrode. No moving parts to break down or wear out. Made in US. > Hoses not included. > > JV-20411 Mini Sump Pump - $10.98 > ======================= > The picture shows a plastic hourglass looking thing where water comes > in on one side, goes through to the center of the hourglass and on exit, > it has an additional suction tube which sucks up the water and carries > it out from the venturi suction. > > Now, I know this isn't a big deal and some of us have either seen or > worked with the venturi effect. Some industrial drum vacuums work with > compressed air to lift fluids and dirt using such a venturi nozzle. > > However, I just thought it was neat that you could buy one of these > little plastic thingies with water hose fittings molded into it if you > wanted to experiment with it. > > Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming any o/u or anything particularly > anomalous with it, just that it might tie in with the zpe pdq.net claim > of being able to produce o/u from a vortex. > > Perhaps there is an optimum angle (as in Schaubergers KUDU antelope horn > angle) that these guys have discovered and MODELLED in a dynamic fluid > flow system. > > We have the Hilsch/Rankin vortex tubes which split air into hot and cold > flows when fed IN through a center tube and OUT through either side of a > dual spiral. > > We have the venturi which feeds IN from one side straight OUT through to > the opposite side and pulling additional media IN (air, water, whatever) > with it by the venturi suction. > > I did a search on venturi power, vortex power, vortex pump and didn't > find much that fit except for these two odd ducks though they don't > really shed any light on how power could be extracted. > > Superconducting & cryogenic rotor cooling system; > > http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?patent_number=4779017 > > Vortex crop circle making machine......; > > http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?patent_number=3828531 > > Like Norm, I too think there is something going on with vortexes, hot > and cold and inertia of mass in motion. Perhaps you might like to buy > one of those tubes for $10.98 to play with. > > Catalog request - 941-747-6645 > FAX orders - 941-746-7896 > Voice orders - 941-747-2356 > -- > Jerry Wayne 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 > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > To leave this list, email > with the body text: leave keelynet > WWW based join and leave forms and KeelyNet list archives > are at http://dallastexas.net/keelynet/ > ------------------------------------------------------------- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 14 21:36:38 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA06779; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 21:35:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 21:35:47 -0700 Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 18:44:12 -0700 From: Lynn Kurtz Subject: Re: Newman's demonstration? In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.19980914121626.00d8f8b4 mail.eden.com> X-Sender: kurtz imap2.asu.edu (Unverified) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <199809150143.SAA02521 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: <"FXKTa3.0.qf1.ZwU_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22319 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 12:16 PM 9/14/98 -0500, you wrote: >It's the 14th today. > >Did the demonstration happen on the 12th? Any reports? > >Scott > Scott: As you know, I opted out. All I can tell you is that I never saw any local publicity either before or after (presuming it happened) the demo. Not that I listen to every radio and TV station in the valley, but I do read the Arizona Republic regularly and watch the local news on one of the TV channels. Nothing. --Lynn From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 14 21:51:05 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA12852; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 21:50:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 21:50:18 -0700 Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:45:43 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Newman's patent strategy / UL web pa Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809150049_MC2-5980-4183 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"3J1Nv3.0.f83.98V_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22320 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex I wrote that before Newman or anyone else will be allowed to sell machines in the U.S. commercially, he will have to reveal every detail of the machine to Underwriter's Laboratory. Mitch Swartz responded: This is INCORRECT. There is no longer a monopoly on this. Underwriters Lab OR DSG (Dash, Straus, and Goodhue) both certify. Yes, I was aware of that. I should have said, before Newman will be allowed to sell products, the products must be "checked for compliance with applicable Standards for Safety. Such identification is often required by various governmental authorities to comply with local codes and ordinances." (quoting UL), and the check must be performed by a certified engineering firm like UL. That amounts to the same thing, doesn't it? Let us not split hairs. Swartz asks me: How many patents do you have? I have as many as Bill Gates. Patents are not allowed in my business. How many in cold fusion or o/u? Nobody has a patent in o/u. The P.O. automatically denies patents for devices that apparently violate the First Law. Very few people have cold fusion patents, and most were granted by subterfuge. The P.O. does not like cold fusion. Until the CF scientists employ the strategy I recommend, or some other novel strategy, patents will not be granted and no progress will be made. The CF scientists, including Swartz, are trying to fight the P.O. with the same tactics they used back in 1989. This is a battle they cannot win. In a military analogy, they remind me of the WWI generals who knew only one tactic: frontal attack en mass. No imagination, no strategy, no lessons learned from Sun Tzu or W. T. Sherman. The CF scientists do the same thing, over and over, year after year, they never win, they never change and they complain the deck is stacked against them! Of course it is! When you inform your enemies at the P.O. when, where and how you intend to attack, and you come straight at them the same old way, directly into their stronghold, they will beat you every time. The CF scientists are like Newman, who does the same unconvincing demonstration year after year, never listening to experts, never trying anything new, never reconsidering his tactics. As Michael Collins said (in the movie and in real life too, I think), "why bother fighting?!? Why don't we save the British the trouble and blow our own brains out?" - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 14 22:42:12 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA30965; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 22:39:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 22:39:10 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980915012944.0082b440 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 01:29:44 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Newman's patent strategy / UL web pa In-Reply-To: <199809150049_MC2-5980-4183 compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"T_ktv.0.kZ7.zrV_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22321 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:45 AM 9/15/98 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: >I wrote that before Newman or anyone else will be allowed to sell machines in >the U.S. commercially, he will have to reveal every detail of the machine to >Underwriter's Laboratory. Mitch Swartz responded: > > This is INCORRECT. There is no longer a monopoly on this. > Underwriters Lab OR DSG (Dash, Straus, and Goodhue) both certify. > >Yes, I was aware of that. I should have said, before Newman will be allowed to >sell products, the products must be "checked for compliance with applicable >Standards for Safety. Such identification is often required by various >governmental authorities to comply with local codes and ordinances." (quoting >UL), and the check must be performed by a certified engineering firm like UL. >That amounts to the same thing, doesn't it? Let us not split hairs. No. There are multiple pathways, and your posts - and words - do not always indicate that. The same is true for the testing labs available to investigators in the field. Furthermore, the appropriate testing (Q/C, Q/A, Compliance engineering) in this field goes beyond that which either group is involved. The issue HERE is accuracy. If Jed want to "split hairs", he should head to D.C. =========================================================== >Swartz asks me: > > How many patents do you have? > >I have as many as Bill Gates. Patents are not allowed in my business. > > > [zip] .. Very few people have cold fusion >patents, and most were granted by subterfuge. The P.O. does not like cold >fusion. Until the CF scientists employ the strategy I recommend, or some other >novel strategy, patents will not be granted and no progress will be made. Again there are multiple pathways, which was the reason for the question in the first place. Jed Rothwell's comments have some truth here but the implication may be flawed. Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 15 00:42:42 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA25616; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:41:46 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:41:46 -0700 Message-ID: <19980915074113.3259.qmail hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [194.73.204.24] From: "Rob King" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Calling Allan's bluff Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:41:13 PDT Resent-Message-ID: <"iwIrf3.0.5G6.veX_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22322 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Sorry Horace, Just back off hols. Oooppps! Must have misread an email along the line somewhere. I appologise for that. :) Rob King >>Hi Vortex >>I have spoken with John Allan today and he has given me his side of the >>story. >> >>I think Jed and Horace are being very unfair and have condemmed John >>without knowing all the facts. > > >Rob, could you please post the text where I have condemned John Allen? I >must have missed it. 8^) > > >> >>I agree with Steve Re. Greg Watson, I don't think anyone would go to all >>that trouble for a few hundred dollars (he'll be back). >> >>People need encouragment not flaming! >> >>I suggest that both Jed and Horace just ring him. >> >>Does anyone want to have another go at building a Meyer fuel cell? >> >> >>Rob King >> >> >>______________________________________________________ >>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner > > > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 15 01:30:35 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA32362; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 01:26:12 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 01:26:12 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 03:34:54 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Jed's opinion is irrelevant Resent-Message-ID: <"4jk9d3.0.av7.ZIY_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22323 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >To: Vortex; >INTERNET:josephnewman earthlink.net > >John Allan confuses the issue by writing: > > I find it vulgar that Jed Rothwell always brings everything down to > money, power, status . . . . perhaps money, power and status not what is > motives these individuals. . . . Discovering what motivates these > individuals and providing that would seem to be the key to opening the > lock, not offers of dosh or assaults on their personal character. > >I do not know what motivates Newman. During his lectures he expresses fury >toward the patent office for denying patents; toward scientists for not >believing his claims; and toward a company that he claims stole his ideas. He >exhibits a motor made by this company which he says over-unity, although he >has never demonstrated this claim. Perhaps he is motivated by a desire to >make money. Perhaps he wants recognition for his scientific accomplishments. >I know he is not a pure altruist. He is not like Benjamin Franklin, who passed >up opportunities to patent the Franklin stove and bifocal spectacles because >he wanted society to benefit from these inventions quickly. If Newman were a >pure altruist, wanting nothing for himself, he would not care about the >company that supposedly stole his design; he would encourage everyone to >steal it. He would disavow any desire for a patent, and he would sell his >machines at cost to people, and encourage them to build machines for their >own purposes. Or he would sell the government all patents and rights to the >machine for one dollar, which is what the scientists at Los Alamos did after >WWII. (One of them actually demanded payment for several patents, which tied >the bureaucracy in knots. He ended up accepting $0.20 per patent for >intellectual property worth billions.) Mr. Rothwell: "Property" comes in _three_ forms. The concept of these three forms (as developed by astrophysicist Andrew J. Galambos) consist of Primordial, Primary, and Secondary. Primordial Property consists of your body; Primary Property consists of your thoughts and ideas; Secondary Property consists of the tangible derivatives of your thoughts and ideas. There is no such thing as a "pure altruist". If someone gives away something -- money, houses, cars, etc. -- to help those (he perceives) who are "in need," then this individual is receiving a higher sense of self worth, greater self-esteem, happiness, etc. In effect, this person is receiving and/or improving the quality of his/her Primary Property in return for dispensing with some of his/her Secondary Property. All volitional beings live to pursue happiness. Moreover, all concepts of happiness pursued through moral (non-coercive) means are equally valid. Joseph Newman is motivated by a desire to 1) insure that innovators receive proper recognition and compensation (both in a Primary and Secondary sense) for their innovations; and 2) help humanity both through such a mechanism and through the application of his technology. The Founding Fathers --- including the aforementioned Benjamin Franklin --- created a vehicle called "The Patent Office" whose purpose was to enable innovators to have a mechanism where they would receive protection for their Primary Property and thus indirectly serve to foster and promote maximal incentive for innovation through independent, creative channels. The results would be that ALL of us would benefit from the creative efforts of such innovators. > >The important point is, Newman's motivation is irrelevant. Whatever he wants, >money, recognition, a chance the help the human race, there is only way for >him to accomplish his goal. He must convince scientists and engineers his >claims are valid. He must perform a properly designed experiment with the snip-- >machine. He does not need Mallove or Little. Many other qualified engineers >would be willing to assist. > >I do not care what motivates Newman. I do not know why he wants to repeat >sterile errors. But if I may speculate, I suppose he fears that a real test >would show no excess energy, which would resolve the issue once and for all, >and prove to him, his friends and family that he has devoted most of his life >to a futile waste of time. That would be a tough thing for anyone to face. > >- Jed Jed, as stated previously, more than 30 scientists have tested, retested, tested, and retested prototype after prototype after protytope constructed by Joseph Newman. These individuals have signed Affidavits attesting to the operability of the technology. You have neither tested one of Joseph Newman's prototypes nor constructed one of your own, thus one could hold the conclusions of those who _have_ tested the techlology in higher esteem than your own postulations. Best regards, Evan Soule' From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 15 01:30:57 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA00425; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 01:29:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 01:29:52 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 03:38:29 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Report re Phoenix, Part A Resent-Message-ID: <"bhcOd1.0.U6._LY_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22324 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Everyone --- to friends, supporters, interested parties, skeptics, and sceptics: I have assisted Joseph Newman for over 15 years. I have done so honestly and sincerely with all the dedication I can "muster." Having returned from Arizona to Louisiana, I would like to provide the following text of my introduction for Joe on Saturday, September 12, 1998 in Phoenix, Arizona at the Sonoran Plaza Ballroom in Sun City Grand, Arizona. This will be followed by a Report of statements by Joseph Newman and recent developments. ___________________________________ Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to Sun City Grand and a unique presentation. I know that some of you have traveled great distances to attend this presentation and I appreciate your sincere interest in this technology. My name is Evan Soule' and I have worked with Joseph Newman for many years. In fact, it was just this time of the year 15 years ago that I learned about Joseph Newman's work for the first time. In 1983 I was presenting in New Orleans the intellectual products of an astrophysicist named Andrew J. Galambos. One of the students enrolled in a course I was presenting alerted me to a multi-part documentary being featured by WWL-TV based in New Orleans. After viewing several of the TV segments, I contacted the television station and learned that Joseph Newman would be coming to New Orleans within two weeks to make a presentation to the Graduate Student Society of the IEEE at the Electrical Engineering College of Tulane University. I made arrangements to attend the Tulane presentation and I was very impressed with what I saw and heard. From that point forward I offered to assist Joseph Newman in any way that I could. Over the years I have maintained contact with the former Graduate Student who organized that original presentation. He is now an electrical engineer based in Georgia. He once told me something very interesting which only serves to underscore the reaction by some members of the conventional scientific community to Joseph Newman's work. At the time that he was arranging that presentation by Joseph Newman at Tulane University, the reaction from the students was very positive - they were interested to hear and, if necessary, challenge Joseph Newman. In fact, more than 60 electrical engineering students attended that IEEE presentation. However, the graduate student organizer told me that he was truly frustrated and saddened by the reaction of his electrical engineering professors and instructors. While he invited ALL such professors to the IEEE meeting, EVERY SINGLE PROFESSOR boycotted Joseph Newman's presentation despite repeated invitations from the students for the professors to attend the presentation. I believe that the actions of those professors speaks volumes about the intellectual dishonesty which has become rampant throughout the academic community. Fortunately there are those conventionally-educated scientists and engineers who DO have intellectual honesty and who are willing to approach a new technology with an open mind. Over the years more than 30 such scientists have tested, endorsed, and signed legal Affidavits attesting to the operability of Joseph Newman's Motor/Generator. I have considerable respect and admiration for these individuals. But with respect to the aforementioned professors, I believe Max Planck's famous quotation says it all: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it" And on a positive note, it's been said that: "Every creative act involves a new innocence of perception liberated from the cataract of accepted belief." It will be the next generation that ultimately brings this technology forward. Through the internet, I have been in contact with thousands of students from around the world as well as in the United States and Canada. These students receive information with open minds that have not been biased and prejudiced by years of memorization. In addition, engineers from many different countries have contacted me to request information about Joseph Newman's technology. Slowly, but surely, his ideas are being disseminated across the planet. Having been a student of history - especially the history of the innovation and transmission of revolutionary scientific ideas - what strikes me is that there is a common thread running through the disclosure of such ideas to the world at large. It seems that the bigger the idea and the more profound its impact upon society, the greater the opposition. A better mousetrap inventor might have a relatively easy time of introducing his new product into the marketplace. But history has demonstrated that with an innovation as important as the Invention of the Aeroplane, the innovators are very likely to meet tremendous opposition. Actually, I have found that this opposition happens in a certain sequence: First there exists the innovation. Then some ridicule the innovation of being "impossible". Then others attempt to steal the innovation and claim it as their own. Then, much later, when the innovation is in full use throughout society, there are those people who talk about the innovation and say, "What's the big deal? It is obvious. Everybody knows that." As Christian Morgenstern said, "The obvious is that which is never seen until someone expresses it simply." In the space of one day, I had waiting for me in my email in-box the following: One email letter congratulating Joseph Newman on his pioneering work of the past 35 years and reporting independent construction of his technology by another. Another email letter attacking Joseph Newman's work as "impossible" and nothing more than a fraud. Still another email letter reporting evidence of the theft of Joseph Newman's pioneering technology by another individual attempting to claim it as his own. Thus we have first the innovation, then the ridicule, then the theft. This vicious cycle of innovation-ridicule-theft which destroys the incentive of the innovator MUST STOP if we are ever to truly mature as a species! As you may know, Wilbur Wright died an early death. I attribute his death in part to the despondency he suffered at the hands of that intellectual thief - Glenn Curtiss - who attempted to plunder the Wright Brothers Innovation. And for the remaining several decades of his life Orville was left to battle a long, lonely fight with the Smithsonian Institution to recognize that he and his brother Wilbur were the TRUE pioneering innovators of the Aeroplane. What other great innovations would have been developed by the Wright Brothers if they had not been so plundered and attacked? We will never know..... but yet we all suffer in the long run by their mistreatment. Joseph Newman should have been issued a patent for his pioneering innovation over 15 years ago. If this had been done, then future innovations/improvements to his technology could have occurred in a natural and productive fashion that would benefit all humanity. As it now stands, Joseph Newman has no recourse but to fight (as did Orville Wright) for what he believes in and for what rightfully belongs to him. And, as he has stated publicly many times, he fights not just for Joseph Newman but for all humanity and for all future innovators who should not need to be subjected to the injustices he has repeatedly suffered. [Sidebar addendum: whenever I travel by aeroplane, I always make it a personal point to mentally thank Orville and Wilbur Wright at the moment of take-off. This is my small way of paying primary gratitude to two human beings who took it upon themselves to make the world a better place for everyone. (I prefer to use the "aeroplane" spelling rather than "airplane" spelling since the former was that originally utilized by the Wright Brothers.)] Some people cannot identify with the anger felt by Joseph Newman or no doubt felt by Orville and Wilbur Wright towards the intellectual thief, Glenn Curtiss. This may be in part because such people do not have major innovations of their own (upon which they have labored all their life). But if a common criminal stole their automobile, or burned down their home, or robbed them at gunpoint, you can be sure that those same individuals would be incensed and outraged by such plunder initiated against them. Yet, when an innovator is plundered of his life's work, some people cannot identify with such plunder. This is unfortunate, because the plunder of innovators affects ALL OF US in the long run - directly or indirectly. If Wilbur, Orville and others in frustration and despair give up innovating, then we will never enjoy the benefits of their productive minds. There are some who postulate that if Isaac Newton had not been so frustrated with many of his fellow humans, and had he not essentially chose to squander (from our timescale perspective) decades of the most productive years of his life as the 'Master of the Royal Mint' - then we might now be well on our way to the stars. This is the "leverage" of the innovator: Foster and protect innovation and we can "move the earth." Stifle, plunder, and attack innovation and we will all suffer the consequences. Looking back over the way in which many major innovators have been treated throughout history - whether it's Galileo being threatened with death for his ideas, or Giordano Bruno being burned alive, or Goddard being publicly ridiculed for his ideas - is this to be the FUTURE history of the Spirit of American Innovation? Will future generations look back at the history of American Innovation and describe it as follows: "Such innovation was born in the resiliency of the Pioneer, and died in the suffocating arms of cynics and bureaucrats." I hope this is not the case, which is why I make my case for the importance of the innovator to the future of humanity. The cynical and bureaucratic resistance to innovation has its roots in negativism - which is the antithesis of such innovation. All too often a bureaucrat's non-creative solution to a problem facing humanity is to pass more political laws and regulations that only serve to restrict the creativity of us all - in other words, the motto of the bureaucrat is: "everything that is not forbidden is compulsory." Well, it's time for a change . . . a new beginning. And the speaker that you're about to hear has just such a new beginning in mind. A new beginning is what is needed to launch our species to the stars. A new beginning is what is needed to utilize a new technology that harnesses the very essence of our universe. As a major physicist of our century once said: "Sic Itur Ad Astra" - this IS the way to the stars. A couple of Ohio bicycle mechanics changed history in this century. A Russian schoolteacher from the past century is the father of modern rocketry. An obscure Austrian doctor innovated a complete cure for puerperal fever. Yes, the independent innovator is alive and well. I'm sure you have heard the famous quotation, "If I have seen farther than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." When Isaac Newton said this, he was standing on the shoulders of Aristarchus, of Archimedes, of Copernicus, of Galileo, of Kepler. The man I am introducing today has also seen farther than others. And it is because, in part, because he stands upon the shoulders of Joseph Black, of Michael Faraday, of James Clerk Maxwell, and of Albert Einstein. Our history of the development of knowledge, of the struggle of innovation and inventors, represent our effort as a species to understand the universe. >From a seemingly simply but profound integration of thought processes based upon direct observation and experimentation, the speaker you are about to hear has moved our species closer to a greater understanding of the universe. Driven by that loftiest of human attributes - curiosity and enquiry - it is his thirty-five year persistence in the face of bureaucratic indifference, stupidity, ridicule, and academic intellectual dishonesty, that has enabled him to develop our access to a new source of energy that is actually as old as the universe itself. In essence, the speaker you are about to hear has a personal philosophy which could best be summed up as follows: "If it can't be done, it interests me." And like the Wright Brothers, whose bicycle shop helped them to finance their quest to fly in a heavier-than-air machine, the speaker has utilized his successful inventions to help finance his quest to create and develop a revolutionary energy machine. In his endorsement, one physicist who worked extensively with the inventor, once wrote, "The future of the human race may be dramatically uplifted by the large-scale, commercial development of this invention." Dr. Robert E. Smith, former Chief of the Orbital and Space Environment Branch at the NASA George C. Marshall Space Flight Center wrote regarding our speaker: "If the manner in which he conducted his experiments and the results were made known to the industrial or engineering community then, in my opinion, several companies and/or individuals possess the expertise and capabilities to construct the hardware required to fully exploit the apparent capability of his new concepts." And Dr. E. L. Moragne, a pioneer in the development of the first atomic bomb, wrote to the speaker: "You have opened an area in Astrophysics which may revolutionize the magnetic energy problems which is now the most paramount problem in future energy and space travel. I do believe with proper research funds, the results would not only be a great financial boon to your financiers, but would lead to developments that will be practical and beneficial to all mankind and develop a new step in science." I have personally known the speaker for 15 years. I will make the following bold statement based upon my knowledge of his work and my observations over the past decade: It is my belief that the speaker today has a deeper and more fundamental MECHANICAL understanding of electromagnetism than anyone alive on this planet. And I make this strong statement NOT to brag about the speaker - for whom I obviously have respect. I make this bold statement to encourage you, the listener, to utilize his talents and understanding to the maximum - while he is alive. Don't repeat the mistakes of our predecessors and provide recognition after the innovator has passed away. This only destroys the incentive of our innovators and impedes for us all, the progress of civilization. The inventor himself has said, "The finished prototype of what I teach will change the world drastically for the good of humanity, more so that any invention before this time." Ladies and Gentlemen, it is now my pleasure to introduce to you, inventor Joseph Newman. ___________________________________________ Evan Soule' end of Report re Phoenix, Part A -- continued in Part B From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 15 01:31:15 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA00463; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 01:29:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 01:29:59 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 03:38:37 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Report re Phoenix, Part B Resent-Message-ID: <"PNEFd2.0.67.7MY_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22325 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Report re Phoenix, Part B -- continued from Part A Synopsis of what Joseph Newman stated at his Phoenix presentation: Several months ago, Joseph Newman was approached by a motor manufacturing company (presently having about 45 employees) in Pennsylvania with a proposal to construct a commercial template Motor/Generator utilizing his technology. In going back through my Archives, I discovered that about a year earlier I had received a letter from one of the principal engineers with the company, requesting information. Information was sent to the engineer and that was the last I heard from him or the company until they approached Joseph Newman earlier this year. An Agreement was reached between Joseph Newman and the CEO of the motor manufacturing company (a man, I am told, in his mid-30's) to: Produce TWO (2) commercial versions of Joe's motor as soon as possible. Once these motors have been tested and perform as expected, then the manufacturing company would be the first to commercially produce the technology. An Agreement was signed by Joe and the company's CEO. In addition this individual signed a Confidential Disclosure Agreement relating to the technology. Final design and production of the commercial-type motor began in late Spring. The intention was to construct a Motor capable of delivering up to 20 HP which could operate as a stand-alone unit (to supply rotational torque for purposes such as irrigation, etc.) or connected to a conventional generator to produce up to 10kW which, I am told, should supply the electrical consumption requirements for the standard home. Joe planned to show the engineers at the manufacturing company the Motor's design and enable them to construct the commercial template motors. The chief engineer (who had originally contacted me by letter) seemed to quickly grasp the essence of the technology and the nature of the design specifications. Over several weeks, Joe would commute between Pennsylvania and Colorado, checking on the progress of the project. Joe also arranged for a gentleman (Mr. Benz, who had assisted him over the years and who has known him since 1984) to remain on-site to help with production. It became apparent to Joe that the abilities of the on-site engineers and motor builders were not as knowledgeable in understanding construction of the Motor as he had assumed, so Joe ended up spending more and more time in Pennsylvania to build the motor. [Also: Mr. Benz was in attendance at the Phoenix presentation and publicly corroborated events relating to the motor manufacturing company in Pennsylvania.] Towards the conclusion of the construction period, Joe stayed nearly an entire month in Pennsylvania and devoted 12-18 hours per day in the unit's construction. In addition, Joe brought several thousand dollars worth of his own neodymium magnets from Colorado to install in the motor under construction. The Pennsylvania company also did not proceed with simultaneous construction of the 2nd Motor even though the Agreement stated that both Motors would be produced "as soon as possible." [The original Agreement stipulated that one of the Motors constructed would become Joe's and the other would become that of the company's.] When construction was completed by mid-Summer, torque testing began. I was informed that in one instance two engineers (each individual weighing over 160 lbs) stood on either side of a wooden beam attached to (in a specific manner) and designed to apply a torque load to the operating shaft of the motor. In every case they were unable to have any noticeable affect upon the rpm rate of the shaft and could not "choke it down". The engineers were amazed by the unit's performance and efficiency. Joe then notified the engineers early in the week of August 3rd that his son's birthday was on August 10th and he planned to drive back to Colorado within several days with the newly constructed motor since he has promised his son that he would be present for his birthday. He also announced that he intended to hold a demonstration in the West with the new Motor although a date was not selected at that time. On Thursday of the week of August 3rd, Joe had been making finishing adjustments to his Motor and, after being up through the night completing such adjustments, he retired for an afternoon nap before a long drive back to Colorado. At about 7pm Joe returned to the company to load up the motor. Having been given a key to the company site, he went to the area where the motor was kept and discovered to his amazement that several individuals (the chief engineer and several employees) had substantially taken the motor apart without his knowledge or permission. He stated that they were unable to offer any explanation for their action except that they had wanted to "check out a possible short in the motor." He was very upset with their unannounced action and proceeded to gather up the component parts to be reassembled later when he returned to Colorado. The chief engineer who has been his principal contact with the company helped him load the Motor into his van and he then proceeded to head back to Colorado. At about 10pm that same evening, I received a telephone call from Olivia Newman (Joe's wife) who was in Castle Rock, Colorado. She sounded extremely upset. Apparently the owner of the Motor company had contacted her by telephone and immediately began shouting at her and issuing multiple threats in a loud, abusive tone of voice. He threated to have the "FBI" and the "police" arrest Joe when he showed up at his home in Colorado. She described the tone in his voice as both anger and PANIC. It was the panic of someone who had seemingly "lost control" over something that was very valuable to him. Since Joe was on the road somewhere between PA and CO, I told her to simply stay calm since there was nothing that she could do until she spoke with Joe. At a bit past midnight I received another telephone call from Olivia who told me that Joe had just called her (while he was en route) and that he was both surprised and upset that the owner of the company would call her, threaten her and Joe, and so abuse and intimidate her on the telephone. Joe stated that the individual was apparently "up to something" and could not understand why the man would sound so desperate in having the Motor removed from Pennsylvania since Joe was and had been prepared (for the proceeding several months) to assist with the construction of the second Motor per the original Agreement and he had notified personnel for several days that he planned to returned to Colorado with the Motor. Yet the company had never made any effort to follow through with the original terms of the Agreement and construct "as soon as possible" the second motor, as the Agreement stated. Joseph Newman has yet to see either the "police" nor the "FBI" emerge, as threatened by this individual in Pennsylvania. Within the terms of the original Agreement, Joseph Newman has stated that he had every right to take Motor #1 -- especially since he ended up physically constructing about 90% of the Motor and also installed several thousand dollars worth of his own neodymium magnets into the unit. The matter has now become an interchange of letters between Joseph Newman's attorney in Colorado and an attorney representing the CEO in Pennsylvania. I have seen the signed copies of both the Disclosure Documents signed by this CEO as well as the original Agreement signed by the CEO. Joe's position is that on the evening when he returned to the company to obtain the Motor, those who had disassembled the Motor without his knowledge or permission had done something to damage the Motor either intentionally (through sabotage) or in error. It should also be noted that the motor manufacturing company is a component supplier to the General Electric Company who, Joe believes has wanted to control this technology for many years without entering into a royalty agreement with its innovator. Joe has speculated that some entity (such as GE) had made an "agreement" with the CEO of the motor manufacturing company that, "if they could prevent Joseph Newman from having permanent possession of the motor, disassemble it and claim that it did not work, while turning over the physical motor (evidence) and specs to GE (or any such entity), that the individual involved would be 'rewarded'." Three questions that Joe asks: 1) If the Motor did not work, then why would be CEO be so desperate and frantic to get it back?; and 2) Why did the owner sound so desperate and threaten Olivia as he did, unless he felt that he had suddenly lost control over a situation that could have been very personally 'profitable' to him at Joe's expense? and 3) Why did those employees (knowing that Joe was to return to the company site that evening to take the Motor with him to Colorado) suddenly take the Motor apart at the last minute without Joe's knowledge or permission? On Wednesday, August 26th Joe notified me that he would be scheduling a demonstration of the new motor on September 12, 1998 and that two weeks notice should be adequate to allow people to make arrangements to attend the demonstration. He asked me to post the information on the website and to notify as many people as possible over the internet. I asked him if the Motor was ready to demonstrate. He said that it was not, but that it would be ready in time for the 12th. I told him that I thought it would be more prudent if he first totally completed construction then, secondly, completed a thorough series of test protocols, and THEN schedule the demonstration. He informed me that the unit would be ready to demonstrate on the 12th and requested that I post notices to that effect. I then proceeded to follow his instructions and posted to the internet. During those c. two weeks, Joe also proceeded to begin relocating from Colorado to Arizona. He had also announced that a Dynamometer would be employed to conclusively prove the nature of the torque and input power applied to the Motor. It soon became obvious that a Dynamometer (of a type/size applicable to the technology) would not be easy to locate. Initial price estimates ranged from $12,000, to over $20,000. Several people were working on trying to locate an appropriate Dynamometer. Finally, one was located and purchased two days prior to the demonstration --- a unit which costs $5,000. [It was later determined at the Phoenix presentation that the unit was not properly calibrated by the manufacturer.] Within the weeks prior to September 12th (the day of the presentation), it was apparent to Joe that whatever those individuals had done to the Motor in Pennsylvania on that final night -- it was not performing as it originally had performed because the shaft would hardly turn. As the September 12th deadline approached, Joe assured everyone that he would determine the problem and have it fixed in time for the presentation. He and engineer Milton Everett -- (resident of Phoenix and formerly of Mississippi who was the first engineer [of many] to come publicly forward in 1981 after having tested Joe's prototypes and endorsed the technology) -- worked on the unit. Back in 1981, Milton was HIGHLY skeptical at first and had stated that it took 3 visits to Joe's lab in Lucedale and extensive testing of his prototypes to know that the technology works. Milton has retired as an engineer with the Mississippi Department of Energy, is now living in Phoenix and has been assisting Joe there. Although Milt and Joe were up all night before the Demonstration working on the unit and also trying to get the Dynamometer operational, their efforts were for naught. The motor would still not properly operate. According to Milton, the unit's wiring needed to be thoroughly checked out again to make certain that there was no electrical shorting. As I write this, approximately 10 individuals (mostly from other areas of the country) have remained in Phoenix to see a demonstration of the Motor after Joe and Milton have had the opportunity to thoroughly check out and rebuild the unit as necessary. It is my hope that the unit will perform as stated and can be witnessed/videotaped by these individuals. _________________________________ Other than the Technical Explanation and Theory innovated by Joe, no one with whom I have ever communicated has been able to provide a definitive explanation for the anomalies produced by the many prototypes Joe has constructed over the years: results verified by hundreds of different meters, oscilloscopes and proney break testing. [Oscilloscope photographs are available to anyone requesting them.] Over a period of 30 years, Joe developed his Technical Explanation and Theory which he has presented in his book. His Theory of the Gyroscopic Massergy provides a precise and explicit mechanical explanation for Fleming's Rule and Magnetic Attraction/Repulsion. Joe has consistently encouraged others to build their own prototypes for their own use and experimentation. Others have done this and, like Jean-Naudin in France, have also reported a "cooling effect" produced by the system. I believe that these areas should be investigated in detail and every effort should be made to understand these observed anomalies. I applaud the more than 30 scientists who have signed Affidavits attesting to the operability of the technology and many of whom have publicly appeared with Joe (with their speeches preserved in videotape format) to endorse his work at presentations of the technology over the years: in New Orleans, Louisiana, in Jackson, Mississippi, in Atlanta, Georgia, in Biloxi, Mississippi, in Mobile, Alabama, and in Washington, D.C. Personal note: As I stated above, I have worked with Joe for more than 15 years. For the first four years, Joe was financially able to reimburse me for my telephone calls and postage/printing expenses that I expended on his behalf. For the past 11 years I have donated my time, money, and resources to help Joe bring forth this technology. My telephone expenses alone (which are considerable in the course of a month) and all website expenses and related internet/computer/printing expenses are borne by myself. So it has been for over a decade since Joe exhausted his available financial resources on legal battles with the patent bureaucracy and in purchasing new equipment/materials/parts to construct new generations of prototypes. >From personal experience, I know that Joe will continue to fight to bring forth this technology until he breathes his last breath. I will continue to volunteer my efforts to help him since I also believe in the importance of the technology, as does Milton Everett, Darryl Bonz, and many others. While anyone may prefer that Joe operationally plan his strategy and present his technology in a given manner, Joe is the only person who has the total and final control over how he proceeds. It may well be that those who have followed and hopefully mastered this technology (and there are hundreds of such individuals with whom I have corresponded over the past two years) will be also able to assist in bringing forth this technology through new applications and downstream developments long after the innovator is gone. For better or worse, this is how it happened with Wilbur Wright. Joseph Newman does not have access to the internet (I am in New Orleans and he is Phoenix at the moment) nor does he read internet posts. Specific questions regarding Joe's plans for the technology and the development of the Motor should be addressed to Joseph Newman at: (602) 977-2813 (Phoenix), or (602) 583-4333 (Phoenix), or (303) 814-3403 (Castle Rock), or 2050 Vineyard Drive Castle Rock, CO 80104 Milton Everett (in Phoenix) at: (602) 546-4031 Sincerely, Evan Soule' LATE UPDATE: 9/14/98 I have now been informed that Joseph Newman has made repairs on and demonstrated his Motor in Phoenix to 10 individuals who had arranged to remain in Phoenix through Monday. The newly-purchased dynamometer is still not functioning and the manufacturer is being consulted. Early Monday morning, Milton Everett and Joe had the unit drawing only 150 milliamps (with 110 volt input) and the rotating shaft of the unit could not be choked down. Following a period of testing it was believed that a wire came loose. After making additional checks on the unit it was demonstrated in the afternoon to the aforementioned 10 individuals. During this test the unit drew 2 amps and 110 volts and the current did _not_ go up when individuals attempted to choke down the shaft of the unit with their hands. Every attempt by the individuals present to hold down (choke) the shaft as it operated was unsuccessful -- the unit's shaft continued to turn and everyone expressed the fact that a very powerful torque was quite evident. In fact, even from a dead stop, the unit's shaft could not be held still once the 220 watts were applied. [Within the 400-lb machine, 90 lbs of copper have been utilized.] Joseph Newman has stated that he can hold down the shaft of a 5HP conventional electric motor from a dead stop and prevent it from rotating once current is applied. Joseph Newman welcomes positive and constructive input. In addition, Joseph Newman made this statement to me on the telephone this evening: "To anyone who does NOT believe that this unit has performed as indicated -- and as witnessed by those who specifically stayed in Phoenix to see it -- and/or who does not believe in the efficacy of this technology, I challenge you to contact me directly at the above telephone numbers and confront me with any comment, criticism, or input." I reported to him that I had received several negative (as well as positive) comments about him on the internet following the Phoenix presentation. Joe's reply: "It is typical that such people never have the courage to state such negative comments to my face or call me on the telephone and tell them to me directly. Unless they have the courage to do this, such comments mean nothing to me." From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 15 02:12:59 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA10457; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 02:10:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 02:10:21 -0700 Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:05:51 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199809150905.LAA23469 imaginet.fr> X-Sender: lentin mail.imaginet.fr X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Jean-Pierre Lentin Subject: Newman demonstration report Cc: keelynet DallasTexas.net Resent-Message-ID: <"SUYxr3.0.JZ2.yxY_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22326 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi all ! I found this anonymous report about Newman's demonstration on free_energy onelist.com, Eric Krieg's skeptic list about FE (yeah, I'm on that list too... ). Here it is (slightly edited). " I got there for two hours of it. The show went for less than that, and I had to leave in the middle of the ending questions. It wasn't as energetic as the Dennis Lee show I had gone to. It was still interesting, though. And a little strange at times. The room had the tables next to the door with the sign up sheets. The tables were in an L shape. The smaller table was going into the room from the door, and the longer tables went toward the front of the room. On the corner were the books for sale. The $79.00 books. They were large hard cover. Then there was an order form to get a tape of the show. Next was a model of a couple of magnets made by Evan Soule. They has the lines of force around them and little beads on the lines. They were so that Soule could more easily understand what Newman was talking about. There were also two stack of Soule's business cards. Then there were the charts of how magnetic currents work and a picture of Newman next to his car. There were also a lot of newspaper articles about him on the table. Back next to the tapes there was also some free literature. I got some extra copies to send you. The chairs were set up in two sets of 49 chairs, 7x7 rows. An aisle was in the middle of the room, and a tv with a vcr in front. There was also a camera in front of the tv. The stage had the motor on the left side set on two supports. A long table in the middle of the stage had a microphone and some mechanical things. There was a dynamometer and a small motor. The small motor he talked about later. The show started with the tv. The tape showed old news reports of Newman's shows. One news station went to his house and tested it. They said that they used a couple of small batteries which could run a normal motor for a little over a minute, and were discharged, to run his motor for over an hour. They then put them into the first motor again, and they ran the motor for a couple of minutes. The tape also had him on a show saying that his motor works because it works with a law that's not understood. That the magnetic field comes from the energy in the matter as well as the current. He talks about getting a %100 matter to energy conversion on a part of the tape. There were physicists and engineers on the tape who said that they agree with it. Newman said that there's 30 who signed a paper saying that they do. I couldn't see all of the names with some people in front of me. Some got on the tape. The two I wrote down were Dr. Hastings, who Newman said later sold out, and the other was Brent Spellman from Rayovac batteries. There was also a mention of Dr. Robert Smith from NASA and Dr. Morana (sp) who worked on the atomic bomb. Next Evan Soule spoke for a while. He mostly talked about how great this was and compared Newman's problems with the patent office and other people to the problems of the the Wright brothers and other scientists and ancient philosophers. Then Newman talked. He said that Evan had taken some people to his house to look at the machine. He said that the engineers there said that it worked. Newman started out talking about his beginnings at an early age wondering why bullets moving at high speed skipped off of water while he was duck hunting, then blowing holes in trees. He read a thing in a Time book on energy and said that he saw similarities in the lake experiment. He said that no one could explain the changes in the field and a current as you move a conductor to different positions. I guess you've probably already heard of his gyroscope particle theory that he uses to explain it. He talked about Hastings selling out. Hastings sold the small motor to the Johnson Motor company. He said that the smaller motor would run at 3 hp from 600 watts. He confused me because he started saying that 3 hp should be able to generate a couple of thousand watts. He got into conspiracies here. He said that the owner of the Johnson company is also the owner of the Mobile oil company. This motor that they stole also cools the wires instead of heating them from the current. He said that the company is selling that motor all over the world for millions of dollars. They also had an ad for the motor. He says that when he put the real information on the web, they took out their ad and made a smaller one. He also said somewhere that they aren't making the same motor anymore. He's suing a patent attorney who said that the engineers didn't think it would work, even after they had said it did work. He turned to the dynamometer that he was going to use for the demonstration. He showed how it wasn't working and the demonstration couldn't be done with it. But the people could go onto the stage after the show and they would rewire it to run without the dynomometer attached. Newman said that he met up with a guy named Jim, who was there, and tried to help Newman with a company in the east. Alliance Motors said that they wanted to build them. Newman said that he and Jim built most of the motor and they tested it. He said that the engineers there stuffed four magnets onto the ends and it wouldn't move. So he put two brushed on the ends instead and it moved slowly. He said that they tried to stop it but couldn't. They tried to push wood into it and that they tried putting wood boards on the ends and standing on them, but they couldn't get it to stop. And he said that it wouldn't take in any more than 300 watts. The company wanted to bring in GE engineers, but Newman wouldn't let them because of past problems with them and other engineers. He said that the head of the company signed a contract saying that he would get all of the company in the east. He just couldn't tell anyone about the machine yet. More of the conspiracy came up here. He says that they took the motor apart to keep him there and put it back together and couldn't get it to work. They called the FBI, who held Jim at the company, and threatened his wife over the phone. They threatened to go to his house on his son's birthday and arrest Newman. He said that they hired an attorney to say that the contract never existed. Then it was the questioning time. A question about the patent came up. Newman said he has a patent. he said that the patent is in Mexico and is also good here and in Canada because of NAFTA. The electric bill question came up. He said that he doesn't use his machine on his house because the oil companies would just send people there to dig up the house and check for any other power source. He said it happened to another person once who really had a steam engine running in the basement. It would still make sense for him to use it, though. He keeps talking about how limited his money is, so selling energy back to the grid all the time would make him plenty of money, if it worked. He said he's going to start a company in Phoenix. He will be making the motors and selling them to the people for about $5,000-$6,000. He said that the one on the stage can run a 10kw generator, but the motor will only take about 700 watts to run. Someone asked if it would run a 200 amp house. He said that most houses are 100 amps and the motor will run it. The person pointed out that it would need to be a 20kw generator for a 100 amp 200 volt house. Things got confusing then about who's question he was answering. Someone else said that the motor would need to be about 4 times bigger to run a 200 amp house. Newman said that it doesn't matte since the energy will still be free. Newman got into god. He said that a Rabbi from Israel told him that he could create peace there with the machine and he had some vision from god or something. He said that the Rabbi said that it was prophecy. The Rabbi went back to New York and never contacted Newman again. Newman called him and told the Rabbi that he knew who threatened him. The Rabbi said that they would all go to hell. Someone asked about the batteries. Newman said that the batteries would need to be replaced after about four years, but he knows that better batteries can be made to withstand the recharging from the machine. They were getting close to getting the ends off of the motor. He said that it would run at about 10-15 hp and that he would give people gloves to try to stop it. He said that it wouldn't be given any more than 700 watts. he also told the people that they could try stopping it by standing on it if they wanted. He's suing the government for their part in his problems. And he said that God gave him the patent in Mexico. I don't think he meant it literally. I missed a little of what happened. Mostly just more people he's proven it to and more conspiracy stuff. Rayovac batteries had some contract with him to make a better battery and then turned on him. Milton Everett (sp), who was there, brought Mississippi DOE people to Newman's house show them it works. Things like that. But that's generally what happened. You can listen to the tape when you get it. It's a little hard to hear at times, but it's mostly understandable." (end of report) (re-posted with Eric Krieg's permission) -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jean-Pierre Lentin --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 15 03:02:35 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA15785; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 02:51:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 02:51:40 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 05:00:02 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Re: Spoke with Newman Resent-Message-ID: <"SIpCH3.0.Zs3.hYZ_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22327 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Evan, > >We're not communicating. > >Even agreeing with your input energy/output energy definition, the problem >here is that the proposed use of meters to measure input power can't do the >job in the presence of spike discharges - simply can't. > >Therefore, in your analogy, you may be lighting off your gasoline soaked log >with an atomic bomb, therefore NOT getting more out than in, but we only see >the spark and think otherwise. > >You need something like a Clarke-Hess averaging power unit, not meters, to see >if the input is a spark or much more. All of us who have worked in the >discharge business (us for 13 years) know what the problem is, and we know >this demo with meters will simply not do the job. You might measure only >watts of input with these meters when in actuality there are tens of watts >going into the experiment from the batteries, but the meters are not able to >cut the mustard (read the meter specs and check them against the frequencies >in the circuit with an oscilloscope). > >This is not knee-jerk skepticism. Assuming Joe might be right and have a >great technology, it drives sympathetic researchers crazy to see him insist on >attempting to prove it with measurements we know are faulty, when it would be >so easy to do it right. > >'Nuff said! > >Hal Puthoff Dear Hal, I invite you to explicitly contact Joseph Newman at: (602) 977-2813 (Phoenix), or (602) 583-4333 (Phoenix), or (303) 814-3403 (Castle Rock) and invite him to come to your lab to test his Motor and you can explain to him 1-on-1 why you believe you can succeed in providing a totally accurate, comprehensive, and useful test. Personally, I would LOVE for such a test to proceed. I do know that over the years Joe first began testing with various meters (some were his, some were supplied by others) which verified the operability of his technology. The first objection raised by some was that the meters "were not properly calibrated." So he paid for an expert to provide Affidavits that the meters WERE properly calibrated. DONE. The next objection raised by others was that the meters were incapable of dealing with the complex waveforms and than ONLY an oscilloscope would provide accurate readings. So Joe himself obtained an oscilloscope (and had other oscilloscopes brought in by others) to test the prototypes. Once again, the oscilloscopes verified the operability of his technology. DONE. Then it was claimed that the oscilloscope was not properly functioning. Joe then paid for a Tektronix's expert to be present for on-site testing and certified that the equipment was functioning properly. DONE. The next objection raised by others was that ONLY proney brake testing would _really_ be conclusive. This was DONE. The next objection raised by others was that ONLY a Dynamometer test would _really_ be conclusive. This was first done by Lawrence Tech University and the results are documented in Joseph Newman's book. Since Joe has been told that he should conduct additional testing with a Dynamometer, Joe has sought to purchase his own unit and conducting additional testing on his newest Motor. This has yet to be done since the $5,000 unit purchased by Joe was not properly calibrated by the manufacturer. So, Hal, give Joe a call and invite him to your lab to test his Motor. Evan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 15 04:16:55 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA30393; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 04:10:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 04:10:10 -0700 Message-ID: <000101bde098$5cf2aaa0$478f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Cc: "George" Subject: Wright or Wrong Brothers? Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 05:02:22 -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: <"edzPA1.0.eQ7.Dia_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22328 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Evan Soule's invoking of the plight of the Wright Brothers doesn't square with the credit that should go to the Wrong Brothers (Chinese I think) dating back to the age of Confucious who admonished that, "Man who Fly Upside Down have Crack up". Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 15 08:03:32 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA30633; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 08:01:31 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 08:01:31 -0700 Message-ID: <19980915150101.1392.rocketmail send101.yahoomail.com> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 08:01:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Anton Rager Subject: Re: [even further off topic] Wright or Wrong Brothers? To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"P5f903.0.YU7.A5e_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22329 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Here's a trivia tidbit: ever wonder who's goofy idea it was to have reversed threads on the left crank, and normal threads on the right crank of a bicycle? Yep...the Wright Brothers threaded one the wrong way and one the right way to keep the pedals from loosening. ---Frederick J Sparber wrote: > > Evan Soule's invoking of the plight of the > Wright Brothers doesn't square with the credit that should go to the Wrong > Brothers (Chinese I think) dating back to the age of Confucious who > admonished that, "Man who Fly Upside Down have Crack up". > > Regards, Frederick > > == 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 Sep 15 08:17:56 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA03981; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 08:16:05 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 08:16:05 -0700 Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:13:04 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Jed's opinion is irrelevant Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809151115_MC2-597E-9881 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"9IqrK.0.5-.qIe_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22330 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex; >INTERNET:josephnewman earthlink.net Evan Soule writes: Jed, as stated previously, more than 30 scientists have tested, retested, tested, and retested prototype after prototype after prototype constructed by Joseph Newman. These individuals have signed Affidavits attesting to the operability of the technology. Uh, huh. If the tests these 30 scientists performed were similar to the one Newman described by telephone on Friday, these 30 scientists do not understand the problem and their Affidavits are meaningless. I do not know what sort of tests they observed, but the only one that would satisfy me would be a first-principle, self-sustaining demonstration, something like the test the man from Ray-o-vac observed. Anyway, if the machine is real and it does what the Ray-o-vac man attested to, why limit the number of observers to 30? Why not have 300 or 30 thousand scientists and engineers observe the thing? Why not install it in hundreds of test locations, and have it generate power? If money is a problem, make a machine self-sustain and I will buy it immediately for $10,000. Then I'll arrange to buy ten more at that price, and then 100, and before you know it, you will have a million dollars. This is a genuine, serious offer. I often make jokes, but not this time. You have neither tested one of Joseph Newman's prototypes nor constructed one of your own, thus one could hold the conclusions of those who _have_ tested the technology in higher esteem than your own postulations. This is not about me or my postulations. If you will not listen to me, you should listen to Puthoff, Carrell or Mallove, or you should read an introductory textbook on electricity. I do not have to test or construct a machine; I know how to measure electricity and how to set up a simple physics experiment to prove a point. Your experiment proves nothing, as I told Newman on Friday. Every expert engineer on this forum agrees with me. You should stop attacking me and face facts. You have failed to convince the public and the Patent Office because your demonstrations are no good, not because of a conspiracy. People are not fools. They see you have failed to make your point. Don't blame the public -- learn from it! If the machine does what you claim, and you learn to demonstrate and market it correctly, you will triumph all over the world in a few months. You keep talking the Wright brothers. I suggest you read my essay about them in I.E. issue #9. You will see that the five year hiatus introducing the airplane, and the friction, delays and opposition they faced from 1903 to 1908 were primarily their fault. Of course they faced opposition, but the day they adopted the tactics I advocate here, August 8, 1908, they instantly triumphed. (See Combs, chapter 26). You should realize that I did not invent these tactics. The Wrights and many others taught me by example. (And I learned from my own mistakes too!) If you learn to market the machine correctly the public will support you. With broad public support you can beat the oil companies, OPEC, the DoE, Saddam Hussein and every industrial corporation on earth. You could be invincible if you choose to be. The only thing stopping Newman is Newman himself -- assuming his machine actually works, which I doubt. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 15 08:19:21 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA04559; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 08:17:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 08:17:24 -0700 Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:13:15 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: One test after another . . . Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809151116_MC2-597E-98A6 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"uobty2.0.y61.3Ke_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22331 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Evan Soule describes a series of increasingly rigorous tests similar to those performed by Griggs. This is a sad litany: I do know that over the years Joe first began testing with various meters . . . which verified the operability of his technology. The first objection raised by some was that the meters "were not properly calibrated." So he paid for an expert to provide Affidavits that the meters WERE properly calibrated. DONE. The next objection raised by others was that the meters were incapable of dealing with the complex waveforms and than ONLY an oscilloscope would provide accurate readings. So Joe himself obtained an oscilloscope . . . Then it was claimed that the oscilloscope was not properly functioning. Joe then paid for a Tektronix's expert to be present for on-site testing and certified that the equipment was functioning properly. DONE. The next objection raised by others was that ONLY proney brake testing would _really_ be conclusive. This was DONE. The next objection raised by others was that ONLY a Dynamometer test would _really_ be conclusive. This was first done by Lawrence Tech University . . . If this account is true, why on earth did Newman insist that instantaneous meters alone will suffice? Why did he tell me that on the telephone?!? It makes no sense. He made statements to me that any first-year electrical engineer would know are wrong. He refused to reconsider. Now it turns out that years ago he agreed this is wrong, and he has done the experiment correctly ever since. Why did he plan to do it wrong again on Saturday? This is crazy. I have seen much weird behavior in the CF business, but this takes the cake. Newman knowingly sabotaged his own demonstration, and on the phone with me he pretended to know nothing about experimental techniques that he has been using for years. Anyway, the people who have been making these recommendations for one inconclusive test after another are not thinking. They should have said all along: Do a self-sustaining test. Prove the thing can keep itself going beyond the limits of stored chemical energy. That option is not available to Griggs or Pons and Fleischmann, but Newman says he achieved that level of performance years ago in the Ray-o-vac demo. Do that one again! That's what I told Newman, but the message did not compute. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 15 08:41:02 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA14176; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 08:38:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 08:38:59 -0700 Message-ID: <004901bde0bd$f3f67ce0$d3b4bfa8 default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Cc: "George" Subject: Re: [even further off topic] Wright or Wrong Brothers? Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 09:31:40 -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: <"9FL8f3.0.GT3.Iee_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22332 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Anton Rager To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 9:02 AM Subject: Re: [even further off topic] Wright or Wrong Brothers? Since I'm old enough to have greased "buggy" and wagon wheels, I think you will find that left-hand threads were used on wagons and buggies since antiquity. Also the wrench was used as a Pin on the double-tree. :-) Regards, Frederick Anton Rager wrote: > > >Here's a trivia tidbit: ever wonder who's goofy idea it was to have >reversed threads on the left crank, and normal threads on the right >crank of a bicycle? Yep...the Wright Brothers threaded one the wrong >way and one the right way to keep the pedals from loosening. > > >---Frederick J Sparber wrote: >> >> Evan Soule's invoking of the plight of the >> Wright Brothers doesn't square with the credit that should go to the >Wrong >> Brothers (Chinese I think) dating back to the age of Confucious who >> admonished that, "Man who Fly Upside Down have Crack up". >> >> Regards, Frederick >> >> > >== >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 Sep 15 10:39:12 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA31243; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 10:37:19 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 10:37:19 -0700 Message-ID: <35FEA56B.7B183B4D bellsouth.net> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 13:35:39 -0400 From: Terry Blanton Reply-To: commengr bellsouth.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [even further off topic] Wright or Wrong Brothers? References: <004901bde0bd$f3f67ce0$d3b4bfa8 default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Nsg5x1.0.Yd7.DNg_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22333 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frederick J Sparber wrote: > Since I'm old enough to have greased "buggy" and wagon wheels, I think you > will find that left-hand threads were used on wagons and buggies since > antiquity. Also the wrench was used as a Pin on the double-tree. :-) > > Regards, Frederick I don't know about today; but, in the 60's and 70's Chrysler products had LH threaded lugs on the driver's side of the car. It's amazing how easy it is to wring off a wheel lug with an impact tool and 165 pounds of air pressure. Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 15 11:10:10 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA13971; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:08:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:08:29 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 13:17:07 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Jed's opinion is irrelevant Resent-Message-ID: <"pCsoB.0.7Q3.Rqg_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22334 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >To: Vortex; >INTERNET:josephnewman earthlink.net > >Evan Soule' writes: > > Jed, as stated previously, more than 30 scientists have tested, > retested, tested, and retested prototype after prototype after prototype > constructed by Joseph Newman. These individuals have signed Affidavits > attesting to the operability of the technology. > >Uh, huh. If the tests these 30 scientists performed were similar to the one >Newman described by telephone on Friday, these 30 scientists do not understand >the problem and their Affidavits are meaningless. > >I do not know what sort of tests they observed, but the only one that would >satisfy me would be a first-principle, self-sustaining demonstration, >something like the test the man from Ray-o-vac observed. Anyway, if the >machine is real and it does what the Ray-o-vac man attested to, why limit the >number of observers to 30? Why not have 300 or 30 thousand scientists and >engineers observe the thing? Why not install it in hundreds of test locations, >and have it generate power? Well, you know Joe's telephone numbers by now so you are welcome to call him up and ask him. As a reminder, they are: (602) 977-2813 (Phoenix), or (602) 583-4333 (Phoenix), or (303) 814-3403 (Castle Rock), or 2050 Vineyard Drive Castle Rock, CO 80104 Milton Everett (in Phoenix) at: (602) 546-4031 The 30 scientists who tested and confirmed the operability of Joe's prototypes provided 30 more Affidavits than what was originally provided by the Patent Office, which was why Joe originally obtained such Affidavits in an effort to secure his patent. > >If money is a problem, make a machine self-sustain and I will buy it >immediately for $10,000. Then I'll arrange to buy ten more at that price, and >then 100, and before you know it, you will have a million dollars. This is a >genuine, serious offer. I often make jokes, but not this time. Make the offer to Joe directly. > > > You have neither tested one of Joseph Newman's prototypes nor > constructed one of your own, thus one could hold the conclusions of > those who _have_ tested the technology in higher esteem than your own > postulations. > >This is not about me or my postulations. If you will not listen to me, you >should listen to Puthoff, Carrell or Mallove, or you should read an >introductory textbook on electricity. I do not have to test or construct a >machine; I know how to measure electricity and how to set up a simple physics >experiment to prove a point. Your experiment proves nothing, as I told Newman >on Friday. Every expert engineer on this forum agrees with me. You should stop >attacking me and face facts. You have failed to convince the public and the >Patent Office because your demonstrations are no good, not because of a >conspiracy. People are not fools. They see you have failed to make your point. >Don't blame the public -- learn from it! If the machine does what you claim, >and you learn to demonstrate and market it correctly, you will triumph all >over the world in a few months. You keep talking the Wright brothers. I >suggest you read my essay about them in I.E. issue #9. You will see that the >five year hiatus introducing the airplane, and the friction, delays and >opposition they faced from 1903 to 1908 were primarily their fault. Of course >they faced opposition, but the day they adopted the tactics I advocate here, >August 8, 1908, they instantly triumphed. (See Combs, chapter 26). You should >realize that I did not invent these tactics. The Wrights and many others >taught me by example. (And I learned from my own mistakes too!) If you learn >to market the machine correctly the public will support you. With broad public >support you can beat the oil companies, OPEC, the DoE, Saddam Hussein and >every industrial corporation on earth. You could be invincible if you choose >to be. The only thing stopping Newman is Newman himself -- assuming his >machine actually works, which I doubt. > >- Jed I have suggested to Hal that he contact Joseph Newman and invite him to his laboratory for testing. Whether or not this occurs will be up to Hal and Joe. Evan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 15 11:11:17 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA14013; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:08:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:08:32 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 13:17:10 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: One test after another . . . Resent-Message-ID: <"5zsBw1.0.rQ3.Vqg_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22335 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >To: Vortex > >Evan Soule describes a series of increasingly rigorous tests similar to those >performed by Griggs. This is a sad litany: > > I do know that over the years Joe first began testing with various > meters . . . which verified the operability of his technology. The > first objection raised by some was that the meters "were not properly > calibrated." So he paid for an expert to provide Affidavits that the > meters WERE properly calibrated. DONE. > > The next objection raised by others was that the meters were incapable > of dealing with the complex waveforms and than ONLY an oscilloscope > would provide accurate readings. So Joe himself obtained an > oscilloscope . . . > > Then it was claimed that the oscilloscope was not properly functioning. > Joe then paid for a Tektronix's expert to be present for on-site testing > and certified that the equipment was functioning properly. DONE. > > The next objection raised by others was that ONLY proney brake testing > would _really_ be conclusive. This was DONE. > > The next objection raised by others was that ONLY a Dynamometer test > would _really_ be conclusive. This was first done by Lawrence Tech > University . . . > >If this account is true, why on earth did Newman insist that instantaneous >meters alone will suffice? Why did he tell me that on the telephone?!? It >makes no sense. He made statements to me that any first-year electrical >engineer would know are wrong. He refused to reconsider. Now it turns out that >years ago he agreed this is wrong, and he has done the experiment correctly >ever since. Why did he plan to do it wrong again on Saturday? This is crazy. I >have seen much weird behavior in the CF business, but this takes the cake. >Newman knowingly sabotaged his own demonstration, and on the phone with me he >pretended to know nothing about experimental techniques that he has been using >for years. No, Jed, you're reading in your own interpretations to your own perceptions (which is the normal procedure, BTW) .... By writing the above, I did not say that Newman "agreed this is wrong." -- These are YOUR words. When someone else proposed another way to test the invention -- a test protocol that would be "final" -- Joe's attitude was 'fine, we will conduct another test using those measuring devices as well.' His plan WAS to test his Motor using a Dynamometer on Saturday AS WELL AS to utilize standard meters. Evan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 15 12:02:02 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA13299; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:58:08 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:58:08 -0700 From: Puthoff aol.com Message-ID: <43321319.35feb88d aol.com> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 14:57:17 EDT To: josephnewman earthlink.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Spoke with Newman Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 78 Resent-Message-ID: <"sDtkl1.0.ZF3._Yh_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22336 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Evan, You suggested "invite him to come to your lab to test his Motor and you can explain to him 1-on-1 why you believe you can succeed in providing a totally accurate, comprehensive, and useful test." We are more than glad to have him come here, and we would provide testing free of charge. So that such a conversation would be fruitful, I have listed below exactly what we would propose to do. I would like to request that you send this on to him so that he can decide whether he's interested, before I call. We would perform a power balance measurement on the Newman motor by measuring the electrical input power and the mechanical output power simultaneously. The input power would be measured by a wide-bandwidth power analyzer, (Clarke-Hess 2330) and the output power will be measured with a custom-made cradle dynamometer. A cradle-dynamometer provides an indisputable measurement of mechanical power using a known weight on a torque-arm of known length, and a measurement of the angular velocity. An adjustable mechanical load will permit the motor's performance to be evaluated at any desired loading condition. On the basis of extensive experience with similar measurements we expect that the accuracy of this power balance measurement will be about 2% relative. To perform these tests properly, we would require access to the motor for about 2 weeks at our facility in Austin Texas. If he wished, Joe Newman could restrict his time commitment by visiting us but twice during this period, once to deliver the machine and instruct us in handling and installation, and a second time about 1 week later to supervise the actual testing. The intervening time will be required to fit the motor to the dynamometer and ensure that everything is operating properly for the tests. We would perform these tests free of charge as a normal part of our ongoing mission to find a new energy source for mankind. The testing would be open to the public and we would publicize the results. We would provide Joe Newman with a written report of our findings, and be available to discuss the results with potential investors (which we could provide, if needed). Best regards, Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 15 12:17:06 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA21886; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:15:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:15:22 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 14:24:02 -0600 To: Puthoff aol.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Re: Re: Spoke with Newman Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"DRx6d3.0.uL5.9ph_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22337 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Dear Evan, > >You suggested "invite him to come to your lab to test his Motor and you can >explain to him 1-on-1 why you believe you can succeed in providing a totally >accurate, comprehensive, and useful test." > >We are more than glad to have him come here, and we would provide testing free >of charge. So that such a conversation would be fruitful, I have listed below >exactly what we would propose to do. I would like to request that you send >this on to him so that he can decide whether he's interested, before I call. > >We would perform a power balance measurement on the Newman motor by >measuring the electrical input power and the mechanical output power >simultaneously. The input power would be measured by a wide-bandwidth power >analyzer, (Clarke-Hess 2330) and the output power will be measured with a >custom-made cradle dynamometer. A cradle-dynamometer provides an >indisputable measurement of mechanical power using a known weight on a >torque-arm of known length, and a measurement of the angular velocity. An >adjustable mechanical load will permit the motor's performance to be >evaluated at any desired loading condition. On the basis of extensive >experience with similar measurements we expect that the accuracy of this >power balance measurement will be about 2% relative. > >To perform these tests properly, we would require access to the motor for >about 2 weeks at our facility in Austin Texas. If he wished, Joe Newman could >restrict his time commitment by visiting us but twice during this period, once >to deliver the machine and instruct us in handling and installation, and a >second time about 1 week later to supervise the actual testing. The >intervening time will be required to fit the motor to the dynamometer and >ensure that everything is operating properly for the tests. > >We would perform these tests free of charge as a normal part of our ongoing >mission to find a new energy source for mankind. The testing would be open >to the public and we would publicize the results. We would provide Joe >Newman with a written report of our findings, and be available to discuss the >results with potential investors (which we could provide, if needed). > >Best regards, >Hal Puthoff Dear Hal, Thanks for your response. One immediate logistical problem I note with above proposal: >To perform these tests properly, we would require access to the motor for >about 2 weeks at our facility in Austin Texas. I'm assuming then that Joe will be "moving in" to live in your laboratory during these two weeks? I am rather confident that Joe will not agree to go off and "leave" the Motor in the lab, but will insist on being present at all times (24-hours a day) with his Motor. If you wish to convince Joe otherwise of his desire in this regard, you are welcome to discuss it with him. I would also ask that you discuss your test protocol proposal directly with Joseph Newman at (602) 977-2813 (Phoenix), or (602) 583-4333 (Phoenix), or (303) 814-3403 (Castle Rock). He may have immediate questions to ask, and these would best be addressed from him to you, directly, and would eliminate any "third party" interpretation or confusion. Very sincerely, Evan Soule' From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 15 12:22:27 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA24199; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:21:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:21:17 -0700 Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 15:19:00 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Letter to Newman Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809151520_MC2-5988-CBEB compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"tK4fv2.0.1w5.iuh_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22339 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex; >INTERNET:josephnewman earthlink.net [I sent this letter to Joe Newman via U.S. mail. Perhaps Evan would like to print it out and fax it, or e-mail it. - JR] September 15, 1998 Mr. Joseph Newman 2050 Vineyard Drive Castle Rock, CO 80104 Dear Mr. Newman, Mr. Soule suggested I communicate this offer to you directly. If you can supply me with a self sustaining Newman device of any size I will pay you $10,000 for it, after Mallove and Wall confirm that it works. This is my standing offer to all inventors who claim they have anomalous energy devices. As far as I know, the only anomalous energy devices that actually work are cold fusion cells. They cannot be made self-sustaining because the input to output ratio is too low, and the excess energy is irregular and unpredictable. I define a "self-sustaining" device as one which will run indefinitely without chemical fuel, solar energy, or other conventional energy inputs. You described an experiment witnessed by someone from the Ray-o-vac in which the input battery was recharge by back emf. I presume this would run indefinitely. I would be happy to pay for a device with this configuration. I suggest you make it a small, table-top device to save money on parts and materials. For my purposes, a small device that produces a watt or two would be just as good as a large one. If possible, I would prefer a capacitor instead of a battery, arranged so that I can start the machine with external AC or battery power, and then withdraw the outside energy source. Perhaps this is impossible at the present state of development. In that case a copy of the Ray-o-vac device would be fine. I gather you are experiencing some financial difficulty. As I said, I offer to buy a machine immediately for $10,000. After that, if you would like, I'll arrange to buy ten more at that price, and then 100, and before you know it, you will have a million dollars. This is a genuine, serious offer. I often make jokes, but not here. Sincerely, Jed Rothwell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 15 12:23:32 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA24099; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:21:01 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:21:01 -0700 Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 15:18:50 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: One test after another . . . Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809151520_MC2-5988-CBEA compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"9pK-i1.0.Iu5.Suh_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22338 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Evan Soule writes: His plan WAS to test his Motor using a Dynamometer on Saturday AS WELL AS to utilize standard meters. This sounds like a misunderstanding. You must always use both the dynamometer (for output), and the meters (for input). One without the other is meaningless. The "AS WELL AS" part goes without saying. The question is, what kind of meters? I asked Newman about this repeatedly, and he made it clear that he intended to use instantaneous meters, not recording meters or oscilloscopes. I asked why he did not plan to use more sophisticated instruments. He said "it is a scientific fact" that they are not needed. That's incorrect. People who have observed previous demonstrations and lectures by Newman tell me that is what he has done for years. Now *you* say he uses oscilloscopes and other sophisticated instruments. I ask again: Why did he tell me they are not needed? Why didn't he bring a scope on Saturday? Or did he bring one? And why on earth doesn't he build a self sustaining machine, to make all mensuration issues moot? I do not understand! I keep asking questions like this to Soule and Newman. They ignore me, they refuse to answer, or their answers make no sense. It is a funhouse hall of mirrors. I have suggested to Hal that he contact Joseph Newman and invite him to his laboratory for testing. Whether or not this occurs will be up to Hal and Joe. Good! - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 15 12:31:33 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA28247; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:29:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:29:32 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 14:38:10 -0600 To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Letter to Newman Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"WdKzl3.0.Fv6.R0i_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22340 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >To: Vortex; >INTERNET:josephnewman earthlink.net > >[I sent this letter to Joe Newman via U.S. mail. Perhaps Evan would like to >print it out and fax it, or e-mail it. - JR] > > > September 15, 1998 > > >Mr. Joseph Newman >2050 Vineyard Drive >Castle Rock, CO 80104 > > >Dear Mr. Newman, > > Mr. Soule' suggested I communicate this offer to you directly. If you can >supply me with a self sustaining Newman device of any size I will pay you >$10,000 for it, after Mallove and Wall confirm that it works. This is my >standing offer to all inventors who claim they have anomalous energy devices. >As far as I know, the only anomalous energy devices that actually work are >cold fusion cells. They cannot be made self-sustaining because the input to >output ratio is too low, and the excess energy is irregular and unpredictable. > > I define a "self-sustaining" device as one which will run indefinitely >without chemical fuel, solar energy, or other conventional energy inputs. You >described an experiment witnessed by someone from the Ray-o-vac in which the >input battery was recharge by back emf. I presume this would run indefinitely. >I would be happy to pay for a device with this configuration. > > I suggest you make it a small, table-top device to save money on parts >and materials. For my purposes, a small device that produces a watt or two >would be just as good as a large one. If possible, I would prefer a capacitor >instead of a battery, arranged so that I can start the machine with external >AC or battery power, and then withdraw the outside energy source. Perhaps this >is impossible at the present state of development. In that case a copy of the >Ray-o-vac device would be fine. > > I gather you are experiencing some financial difficulty. As I said, I >offer to buy a machine immediately for $10,000. After that, if you would >like, I'll arrange to buy ten more at that price, and then 100, and before you >know it, you will have a million dollars. This is a genuine, serious offer. I >often make jokes, but not here. > > Sincerely, > > > > Jed Rothwell Dear Jed, I don't know when Joe will be back in Castle Rock (from Phoenix), so -- as opposed to an immediate telephone call to him at (602) 977-2813 (Phoenix) or (602) 583-4333 (Phoenix) [which I suggested to you] -- do not expect an immediate response. In fact, if the past is any indication, the post office in Castle Rock will be holding several box loads of mail for him when he returns. I have no way to email him at his present location in Phoenix, since his fax machine is in Castle Rock. Regards, Evan Soule' From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 15 12:38:53 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA32207; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:37:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:37:04 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 14:45:44 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: One test after another . . . Resent-Message-ID: <"G_5Ad.0.8t7.V7i_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22341 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >To: Vortex > >Evan Soule writes: > > His plan WAS to test his Motor using a Dynamometer on Saturday AS WELL > AS to utilize standard meters. > >This sounds like a misunderstanding. You must always use both the dynamometer >(for output), and the meters (for input). One without the other is >meaningless. The "AS WELL AS" part goes without saying. Yes, and these days, explicitness is usually pretty useful. > >The question is, what kind of meters? I asked Newman about this repeatedly, >and he made it clear that he intended to use instantaneous meters, not >recording meters or oscilloscopes. I asked why he did not plan to use more >sophisticated instruments. He said "it is a scientific fact" that they are not >needed. That's incorrect. So, did you ask him WHY he stated that "it is a scientific fact" and WHY it is your opinion that his statement is incorrect? > >People who have observed previous demonstrations and lectures by Newman tell >me that is what he has done for years. Now *you* say he uses oscilloscopes and >other sophisticated instruments. I ask again: Why did he tell me they are not >needed? Why didn't he bring a scope on Saturday? Or did he bring one? And why >on earth doesn't he build a self sustaining machine, to make all mensuration >issues moot? I do not understand! I keep asking questions like this to Soule' >and Newman. They ignore me, they refuse to answer, or their answers make no >sense. It is a funhouse hall of mirrors. Apparently you have not read Joseph Newman lengthy discussion of why "one cannot simply feed the generated, output current back into itself, eliminating the need for an external battery." I refer you to Section 21, page 58 of his book. > > > I have suggested to Hal that he contact Joseph Newman and invite him to > his laboratory for testing. Whether or not this occurs will be up to > Hal and Joe. > >Good! > >- Jed Jed -- I have oscilloscope photographs taken from one of Joseph Newman's operational prototypes; I would be happy to email them to you or anyone else. Evan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 15 15:13:03 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA06968; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 15:11:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 15:11:54 -0700 Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 15:12:17 -0700 From: Lynn Kurtz Subject: Re: Letter to Newman In-reply-to: <199809151520_MC2-5988-CBEB compuserve.com> X-Sender: kurtz imap2.asu.edu (Unverified) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <199809152211.PAA29534 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: <"Ip6CZ2.0.ii1.gOk_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22342 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hey Jed. I'm glad to see we are beginning to agree on some things. You may remember this little exchange: Kurtz: In case you are still having difficulty understanding the concept, here are a couple of examples to help you out (neither of which exist, unfortunately): A minato like motor generator powers itself, and maybe a 100W bulb, sustaining itself and running until the bearings wear out. That is (would be) self sustaining. That *is* what self sustaining means, isn't it Jed? Jed: No, it isn't. There is no scientific justification for demanding the cell work "month after month" or "year after year." This is an example of an impossible goal. And now in today's letter to Newman Jed writes: At 03:19 PM 9/15/98 -0400, you wrote: >To: Vortex; >INTERNET:josephnewman earthlink.net > > >I define a "self-sustaining" device as one which will run indefinitely >without chemical fuel, solar energy, or other conventional energy inputs. If you substitute "Newman" for "Minato" in my statement above, well...... Keep after 'em though Jed. In retrospect, my decision not to waste a an afternoon driving to Sun City West to see the Newman demo is looking pretty good, isn't it. --Lynn From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 15 15:58:39 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA32688; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 15:56:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 15:56:40 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980915175835.00d96860 mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 17:58:35 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Mizuno 10:1 report Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"jmBLe3.0.X-7.d2l_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22343 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: We have completed a series of experiments intended to confirm the 10:1 power gain reported by Mizuno, et al for an incandescent Pt cathode electrolysis cell in the ICCF-7 Proceedings. You may study the results of three runs, one with a D2O solvent at: http://www.eden.com/~little/Inc-W/Mizuno.html Despite the fact that our cell nominally behaved just as Mizuno described, there was no sign of excess heat. Our excess heat detection limit was about 3% relative. Our water-flow calorimeter system performed very well and achieved an overall energy balance typically within 1% relative for these runs. I will be contacting Mizuno and Ohmori shortly to draw their attention to our efforts. I will report what they have to say here on Vortex. 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 Sep 15 16:24:24 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA14553; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 16:21:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 16:21:41 -0700 From: Puthoff aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 19:12:51 EDT To: josephnewman earthlink.net Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Spoke with Newman Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 78 Resent-Message-ID: <"ASCer3.0.7Z3.4Ql_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22344 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 9/15/98 1:15:22 PM, josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan) wrote: <> OK with us. We'll get Joe a cot! Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 15 18:11:57 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA31031; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 18:09:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 18:09:24 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 20:18:06 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Note to L. Kurtz Resent-Message-ID: <"z8XgO3.0.ja7.3_m_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22345 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Hey Jed. I'm glad to see we are beginning to agree on some things. You may >remember this little exchange: > >Kurtz: >In case you are still having difficulty understanding the concept, here are >a couple of examples to help you out (neither of which exist, unfortunately): > >A minato like motor generator powers itself, and maybe a 100W bulb, >sustaining itself and running until the bearings wear out. That is (would >be) self sustaining. > > > >That *is* what self sustaining means, isn't it Jed? > > >Jed: > >No, it isn't. There is no scientific justification for demanding the cell work >"month after month" or "year after year." This is an example of an impossible >goal. > > >And now in today's letter to Newman Jed writes: > >At 03:19 PM 9/15/98 -0400, you wrote: >>To: Vortex; >INTERNET:josephnewman earthlink.net >> >> >>I define a "self-sustaining" device as one which will run indefinitely >>without chemical fuel, solar energy, or other conventional energy inputs. > > > >If you substitute "Newman" for "Minato" in my statement above, well...... > >Keep after 'em though Jed. In retrospect, my decision not to waste a an >afternoon driving to Sun City West to see the Newman demo is looking pretty >good, isn't it. > >--Lynn Dear Lynn, Wilbur's attempt to fly on Big Kill Devil Hill on December 14, 1903 _did_ "fail," [there is a photograph of the failed attempt on Plate 69 of Volume One of THE PAPERS OF WILBUR AND ORVILLE WRIGHT as well as a photo of some people who had been invited to witness the attempt], and -- while I honestly can't say for sure (since the fellow was seemingly not much more than a bicycle mechanic from some town in Ohio) -- I would like to think that in 1903 I would have had the curiosity to see even his failure for myself. Evan Soule' From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 15 18:15:03 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA00144; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 18:13:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 18:13:17 -0700 X-AirNote: 1 X-AIGTO: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-ID: <01BDE0E5.430B7980 56K-038.MaxTNT9.pdq.net> From: ZPE To: "'jdecker keelynet.com'" , "KeelyNet DallasTexas.net" , "vortex-l eskimo.com" Subject: RE: Vortex / Venturi related to Countdown? Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 20:13:04 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"BAjGE2.0.12.i2n_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22346 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi all! ZPE here. Do I really need to say it? OK, I will. Sorry, Jerry. ...not related in the least. Best Wishes, ZPE http://freeweb.pdq.net/zpe -----Original Message----- From: Jerry W. Decker [SMTP:jdecker keelynet.com] Sent: Monday, September 14, 1998 10:58 PM To: KeelyNet DallasTexas.net Cc: zpe pdq.net; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Vortex / Venturi related to Countdown? Hi Folks! I recently received a Johnson Smith Catalog 941-747-6645 in Bradenton, Florida and on page 50 was this interesting line drawing advertising a venturi type water pump. It struck me as possibly being related to the zpe pdq.net countdown claims so here is the text; New! Mini Pump drains over 200 gallons per hour - no electricity needed. Uses ordinary water pressure to drain swimming pools, basements, aquariums, hot tubs, boats & more. Simply attach tiny pump between two garden hoses. When tap is turned on, water pressure sucks up waste water and carries it away. Even if your power is out, you can still drain a flooded basement. Tough, lightweight polypropylene won't rust or corrode. No moving parts to break down or wear out. Made in US. Hoses not included. JV-20411 Mini Sump Pump - $10.98 ======================= The picture shows a plastic hourglass looking thing where water comes in on one side, goes through to the center of the hourglass and on exit, it has an additional suction tube which sucks up the water and carries it out from the venturi suction. Now, I know this isn't a big deal and some of us have either seen or worked with the venturi effect. Some industrial drum vacuums work with compressed air to lift fluids and dirt using such a venturi nozzle. However, I just thought it was neat that you could buy one of these little plastic thingies with water hose fittings molded into it if you wanted to experiment with it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming any o/u or anything particularly anomalous with it, just that it might tie in with the zpe pdq.net claim of being able to produce o/u from a vortex. Perhaps there is an optimum angle (as in Schaubergers KUDU antelope horn angle) that these guys have discovered and MODELLED in a dynamic fluid flow system. We have the Hilsch/Rankin vortex tubes which split air into hot and cold flows when fed IN through a center tube and OUT through either side of a dual spiral. We have the venturi which feeds IN from one side straight OUT through to the opposite side and pulling additional media IN (air, water, whatever) with it by the venturi suction. I did a search on venturi power, vortex power, vortex pump and didn't find much that fit except for these two odd ducks though they don't really shed any light on how power could be extracted. Superconducting & cryogenic rotor cooling system; http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?patent_number=4779017 Vortex crop circle making machine......; http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?patent_number=3828531 Like Norm, I too think there is something going on with vortexes, hot and cold and inertia of mass in motion. Perhaps you might like to buy one of those tubes for $10.98 to play with. Catalog request - 941-747-6645 FAX orders - 941-746-7896 Voice orders - 941-747-2356 -- Jerry Wayne 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 Sep 15 18:33:07 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA08535; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 18:31:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 18:31:48 -0700 Message-ID: <002901bde111$808f23c0$4a4ad3d0 default> From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Newman & Earth Tech Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 21:27:50 -0400 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: <"wTvPX1.0.A52.3Kn_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22347 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I sincerely hope that Joe Newman will take his motor to Earth Tech for an evaluation. They are not adversarial. I also hope that Hal & Scott will pay close attention to the Hartmann and Naudin websites in designing any tests. I don't know the properties of the Clarke-Hess power meter, but I suggest caution in using *any* *standard* meter in measuring Newman's machine. All the evidence I have seen suggest that proper evaluation of the power input (or perhaps I should say energy exchange) between the source and motor is not simple at all, nor is measurement straightforward. Wideband oscillatory flows are involved, which must be properly measured and integrated to see what is happening. I think you need a wideband (not sampling) scope to get a fix on risetimes and then recording instrumentation with a high enough sampling rate to accurately measure the waveforms in one pass (as if they are all transients). Then you can study the waveforms and perform integrations to get energy and power levels. You have to work as close to first principles as possible. "Standard" meters all carry internal assumptions about what is being measured; there are mechanical responses in movements, rectifier transfer functions, assumptions about waveforms in AC meters, etc. Thus critics are correct about using simple meters in a demonstration. Buying an oscilloscope and collecting oscillograms by themselves do not answer the overall energy questions, but they may give support to Newman's descriptions of the phenomena in his machines. Naudin, by the way, is not using a battery power source. He has a standard AC power supply. It is quite plausible that a motor with lots of neodymium magnets and coils with may turns will produce impressive amounts of torque with minimal current input. This does not answer the energy in/out question. >From what I understand of Newman's configurations, a simple closed-loop connection is not feasible. Somewhere there must be a energy source/sink, for which batteries are an obvious choice. Having studied the Correa PAGD system also, I can say there are similar legitimate problems with a simplistic output-input connection. That is not to say that such isn't possible, but it is a specific engineering problem. The Correas uses batteries as energizers and energy sinks in their system for good reasons. They also take extreme pains to calibrate the batteries before and after each run so that quantitative measurements can be made with some confidence. Unfortunately, the use of primary batteries does not provide the desired quantitative measurement base. I say the above with all good wishes to Joseph Newman and Earth Tech for a successful testing collaboration. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 15 18:52:12 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA17973; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 18:47:45 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 18:47:45 -0700 Message-Id: <199809160140.VAA23113 mercury.mv.net> Subject: Re: Newman & Earth Tech Date: Tue, 15 Sep 98 21:45:48 -0000 x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: "E.F. Mallove" To: "VORTEX" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Resent-Message-ID: <"FfRyO.0.dO4.0Zn_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22348 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >I say the above with all good wishes to Joseph Newman and Earth Tech for a >successful testing collaboration. > >Mike Carrell It will be a tragedy if Joe Newman does not avail himself of the EarthTech offer. Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 15 19:16:34 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA28202; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 19:14:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 19:14:22 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 21:23:04 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Spoke with Newman Resent-Message-ID: <"Dbz0s3.0.au6.-xn_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22349 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >In a message dated 9/15/98 1:15:22 PM, josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan) >wrote: > ><during these two weeks? I am rather confident that Joe will not agree to >go off and "leave" the Motor in the lab, but will insist on being present >at all times (24-hours a day) with his Motor. >> > >OK with us. We'll get Joe a cot! > >Hal Puthoff Dear Hal, Thanks for the offer. I hope you will suggest that to him. If he provides the 400-lb Motor I would doubt he will want to be hauling that weight in and out of the lab more than once! :-) Evan Soule' From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 15 19:23:41 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA31186; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 19:22:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 19:22:21 -0700 Message-ID: <35FF20D0.657B keelynet.com> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 21:22:08 -0500 From: "Jerry W. Decker" Reply-To: jdecker keelynet.com Organization: KeelyNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ZPE CC: "KeelyNet DallasTexas.net" , "vortex-l eskimo.com" Subject: Re: Vortex / Venturi related to Countdown? References: <01BDE0E5.45F5A120 56K-038.MaxTNT9.pdq.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Z5XNK.0.8d7.R3o_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22350 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Zpe et al! Hey, never say die!!! -- Jerry Wayne 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 Sep 15 19:24:12 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA31494; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 19:23:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 19:23:17 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980915212408.009037c0 mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 21:24:08 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Newman & Earth Tech In-Reply-To: <002901bde111$808f23c0$4a4ad3d0 default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"cN1Jm.0.zh7.K4o_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22351 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 09:27 PM 9/15/98 -0400, Mike Carrell wrote: >I sincerely hope that Joe Newman will take his motor to Earth Tech for an >evaluation. They are not adversarial. I also hope that Hal & Scott will pay >close attention to the Hartmann and Naudin websites in designing any tests. >I don't know the properties of the Clarke-Hess power meter, but I suggest >caution in using *any* *standard* meter in measuring Newman's machine. Excellent caution, Mike. Hal & I were digging in our copy of Newman's book just today to see if the voltage spikes typically exceed 2000 volts, the rated limit of the Clarke-Hess. Unfortunately, the traces he does present don't show the actual peak values. We'll definitely have to be careful at first using oscilloscopes to check everything out before we hook up (and possibly damage) our expensive power analyzer. We do have some 20kV scope probes (the huge TEK things) which are good up to 75-100 Mhz so we should be able to at least observe the waveforms, no matter how spikey they are. If it turns out to exceed the capabilities of the Clarke-Hess, we can always use a digital scope and monitor the V and I waveforms and multiply them together in real time. We've explored that method quite a bit in the past and, although it works nominally, the results are typically accurate within only about 10% relative due to a variety of errors not the least of which is in the scope probes. Anyway, one way or the other, we WILL make an accurate power balance measurement on Newman's motor....if he will permit it. 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 Sep 15 19:41:53 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA04967; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 19:39:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 19:39:39 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 21:48:21 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Newman & Earth Tech Resent-Message-ID: <"s-psc.0.RD1.hJo_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22352 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >At 09:27 PM 9/15/98 -0400, Mike Carrell wrote: > >>I sincerely hope that Joe Newman will take his motor to Earth Tech for an >>evaluation. They are not adversarial. I also hope that Hal & Scott will pay >>close attention to the Hartmann and Naudin websites in designing any tests. >>I don't know the properties of the Clarke-Hess power meter, but I suggest >>caution in using *any* *standard* meter in measuring Newman's machine. > >Excellent caution, Mike. Hal & I were digging in our copy of Newman's book >just today to see if the voltage spikes typically exceed 2000 volts, the >rated limit of the Clarke-Hess. Unfortunately, the traces he does present >don't show the actual peak values. > >We'll definitely have to be careful at first using oscilloscopes to check >everything out before we hook up (and possibly damage) our expensive power >analyzer. We do have some 20kV scope probes (the huge TEK things) which >are good up to 75-100 Mhz so we should be able to at least observe the >waveforms, no matter how spikey they are. > >If it turns out to exceed the capabilities of the Clarke-Hess, we can >always use a digital scope and monitor the V and I waveforms and multiply >them together in real time. We've explored that method quite a bit in the >past and, although it works nominally, the results are typically accurate >within only about 10% relative due to a variety of errors not the least of >which is in the scope probes. > >Anyway, one way or the other, we WILL make an accurate power balance >measurement on Newman's motor....if he will permit it. > > >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 Dear Scott, I will forward to your attention several oscilloscope photos which you may not have seen. They are not in the book. Evan Soule' From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 15 19:54:52 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA08949; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 19:50:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 19:50:59 -0700 Message-ID: <35FF1A7A.450D earthlink.net> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 20:55:06 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Storms: some results suggestive of CF 9.15.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Puj742.0.iB2.IUo_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22353 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Subject: Re: Blue: Storms: unconvincing CF indications 9.14.98 Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 16:42:19 -0600 From: Edmund Storms To: rmforall earthlink.net [Rich Murray: I am very pleased with the dialogue between Storms and Blue, which manages to be reasonable, civil, and challenging, and want to congratulate both for this. Would anyone like to see these exchanges published in Infinite Energy? Also, Ben Bush's SRI replication of Miles' results? What are the details of the failed attempts to replicate the Arata & Zhang results? It seems that Scott Little has decisively proved lack of excess energy with the dramatic incandescent W and Pt cells, made famous by Mizuno and Ohmori. Doesn't this cloud their many claims about amazing transmutation results in recent years? Is anyone replicating Claytor's deuterium gas discharge transmutation into tritium?] 9/15/98 Rich Murray et al. I think we can agree on one thing; Dr. Blue thinks I‘m not sufficiently critical, and I think he is too critical. Well, it’s a start. I also agree with Dr. Blue when he says “ If, instead, we simple stick to blanket acceptance of every positive result and attribute every negative result to some mysterious experimental failure, nothing about CANR can be deduced from this mix of results.” I have never advocated such an approach because, as Dr. Blue concludes, this would get us nowhere. What I do advocate is a willingness to temporarily accept results to see if they fit a pattern. Granted, this is the approach normally applied to an early stage of work, as Dr. Blue notes. However, because so little interest has been applied to the CANR phenomenon by general science,the field is still in this early, childhood stage. Let’s not kill the kid just because she has not been taught to walk. I would like to use Dr. Blue’s rejection of the SRI data as an example of a very unproductive approach. As he noted, SRI as well as several other people, including myself, find that excess power increases as the applied current is increased above a critical value. Because this behavior is seen by several studies, using different calorimeters and data acquisition systems, it constitutes a pattern which can not be dismissed as crosstalk without more justification than given by Dr. Blue. In my case, I can show that this is not the reason simply by removing the sample and inserting a platinum cathode. This metal does not give excess energy under the same applied current. What is the explanation? Rather than reject the data based on assumed and rather arbitrary explanations, my approach is to see how this behavior fits with other studies of the effect. We know from the SRI work and my studies, for the effect to be observed, a critical composition must be achieved. This critical composition occurs on the surface at random spots and its value is very sensitive to applied current. Using this known information, I would conclude that as the current is increased, a greater fraction of the surface achieves this critical composition and thus can add to the heat effect. While not proving CANR, this approach is useful in advancing the field to a level where such a proof might be found. The assertion that “the magnitude of the claimed effect diminished over the course of time as the experiments, we presume, were refined”, is not true. A more detailed study of the data or a conversation with Mike McKubre would reveal that much of their success resulted from using material from one particular batch of palladium. When they ran out of this material, they discovered obtaining a suitable replacement was impossible. I had the same experience using palladium manufactured in Japan. After considerable effort, I can now identify those characteristics palladium must have for it to be useful. Unfortunately, such palladium is very rare and the means to manufacture it are not available to the CANR community because of cost. I might be more willing to agree with Dr. Blue’s conclusion if this relationship between the properties of palladium and the observation of excess energy production did not exist. Dr. Blue can find the complete data set for the SRI work in EPRI TR-104185, Aug. 1994. I would be happy to present my complete data set if a journal were willing to publish it. Just in case you are wondering, I do not have the considerable time it would take to down-load the results on the web. Dr. Miles did two studies. The first used glass flasks and the second used metal flasks. The first study was flawed because the glass could diffuse helium and the helium measurements were only qualitative. However, Miles did measure the diffusion rate of He through glass and made this correction. Nevertheless, this preliminary work is no longer an issue in deciding the reality of the claims and should be ignored. The second study showed that the flasks did not leak He from the air and the He measurements were more precise. Blank runs were made and these were sent to the same helium detection service using the same flasks as used for active samples. Deuterium was removed by chemical means before He detected was attempted, a procedure that is necessary and for which the necessary calibrations were made. I do not understand how Dr. Blue arrives at the conclusion, “I would say that those data did not, in fact, have appropriate controls to establish that the observed helium was actually the result of CANR.” What is meant by controls? Every sample not making excess energy was also found not to have made excess helium, a leaky flask being one exception. Is this not a control? I do not understand why Dr. Blue objects to making multiple measurements of the calibration constant in order to arrive at a value for statistical error. All measurements have random variations which are discovered in this manner. On the other hand, this value does not represent the possible absolute error which would cause the calorimeter to give a bias to the measured energy value. This error is evaluated by studying material which does not make excess energy. Miles had many opportunities to do such tests using Pt and nonactive Pd. After showing a stable, consistent zero excess for many samples, it is reasonable, at least to me, to attribute an excess for a particular Pd sample to an unusual phenomenon rather than error; especially when this sample continued to make this excess in the absence of any obvious variation in experimental conditions. Dr. Blue is wrong, the Miles-Bush results have been replicated. Ben Bush repeated the measurements at SRI using a Seebeck calorimeter. Results from this study show excellent agreement with the Miles-Bush study as can be seen in my latest review. Granted, helium within the Pd was not analysed. On the other hand, Prof. Arata (Osaka Univ, Japan), using a somewhat different system, did detect the presence of He-4 and He-3 in his Pd samples. Russ George and Roger Stringham analyzed Pd after being subjected to ultrasonic loading and detected He-4 after heat production. Other studies have been done in Italy with similar results. Clearly, Dr Blue rejects each observation because he does not believe the effect is real in the first place. If I understand correctly, the reason for this disbelief is that the results can not “be integrated into our general knowledge base in a meaningful way”. Here we meet the crux of the problem - there is no acceptable explanation. Yes, this is a problem. Yes, there is a vast body of experience and theory supporting the conclusion that two nuclei can not interact unless they come sufficiently close together, a process requiring a large expenditure of energy. This process has been studied extensively using devices which supply this energy. But suppose another mechanism existed which was overwhelmed when such high energies were used. Suppose this process also requires the condensed state in which to operate rather than a plasma. If this were the case, the new phenomenon would have little relationship to past experience. Since we know very little about the proposed state, we do not know whether the fact that “deuteron and a proton have dramatically different nuclear wave functions” is important or not. Some theories presently being explored involve neutron transfer, a process not needing to address this issue. I must wonder why it is so difficult for Dr. Blue to explore the possibility of a new phenomenon. At most we are wasting a little time if we are wrong, but just think of the possibilities if we are right. I thought scientists get a kick out of exploring new ideas. It is true that any statement, observation, or claim can be found at fault by a clever person. It is also true that suggested faults can be just as unreasonable and impossible to prove as are some claims. In addition, someone will always make a mistake or screw up a measurement. This fact can not be used to discredit all measurements. The problem is to agree on a method to arrive at the truth without such distractions. I’m afraid we have not yet achieved such a method in this discussion. Regards, Edmund Storms From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 15 20:04:06 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA15403; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 20:01:34 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 20:01:34 -0700 Message-ID: <35FF37D8.211EF28C gold.globalcafe.co.uk> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 04:01:01 +0000 From: energy gold.globalcafe.co.uk (John Allan) Reply-To: energy gold.globalcafe.co.uk X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, editor@infinite-energy.com, Ed Wall , Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>, Bob Horst , energy gold.globalcafe.co.uk, Mitchell Swartz Subject: Jed's opinion is irrelevant - Messers Wall and Horst Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"3548D2.0.Tm3.Ceo_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22354 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Mr. Ed Wall, We have not been introduced. I appreciate your participation in this discussion, I assure you that I have never made any personal or professional slur directed at you or your work nor anyone else in your laboratory. I am grateful for your confirmation that is it a professional commercially-orientated business entity. Perhaps you can clarify what has not yet been clarified to my satisfaction and facilitate a professional review of work done by yourselves. I wish to independently review the records and video evidence resulting for your collective research on Mr. Stanley Meyer's Water Fuel Cell and any addition personal information held. Dr Mallove assures me a huge expense, supported by yourselves, was outlaid to investigate this work, so I would appreciate further access to financial records. There is no issue of my expectation of your endorsement of unproved technologies but there is an issue surrounding certain " hilarious and deliberate " initiatives, to quote Mr. Rothwell, taken subsequent to what most professionals would consider insufficient research or consultation. Again Mr. Horst, no smear is intended of either laboratories intent. I merely want to see if both parties are willing to subject themselves to the same grounds as they expect others to submit themselves to and criticise their lack of submission therefore. I have no doubt that Dr Puthoff's doors are open to full scrutiny and that he has nothing to hide. I am sure that he will accept a caution for lowering his usually admirably professional standards to make derogatory remarks about other's work without the basis of experimental efforts. I wish to see if they themselves are willing to adhere to a reasonable and open professional investigation by a unbiased third party as they suggest others ought to. You would have to agree that this was fair and would be expected for time to time by a ruling professional body where reasonable doubt arose. I should state that I remain confused as to Mr. Rothwell's position in the hierarchy of Infinite Energy and it saddens me to question Dr Mallove integrity even for one minute but the quality of email responses I have received for him have only obfuscated matters. Presumably this is a desire to cover for a good friend and financial supporter because I find it hard to believe that Dr Mallove could behave maliciously in such matters but I do not know. The lack of professional openess does not augur well. One states that one's own findings suggest some validity in Mr. Meyer's claims. To suggest this is appealing to polemics is to admit some sort of cover up. Your reasonable reply requested. Yours sincerely, John Allan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 15 20:35:04 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA24028; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 20:26:14 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 20:26:14 -0700 Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 23:21:57 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Kurtz: "self-sustaining" definition Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809152324_MC2-599C-7056 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"yXxyj.0.Jt5.L_o_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22355 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Lynn Kurtz proposed a definition for "self-sustaining" as follows: A minato like motor generator powers itself, and maybe a 100W bulb, sustaining itself and running until the bearings wear out. That is (would be) self sustaining. And I said I did not think that was scientifically justified. We cannot demand such performance, because as far as anyone knows, it is impossible. As I recall, in the original discussion Kurtz was demanding a test for this performance in CF cells, where we know it never occurs. CF cells always use up fuel and produce helium. For me, "self-sustaining" is a prosaic phenomenon that a fission reactor, a CF cell in heat after death, or an internal combustion engine does. The gadget keeps itself going until the fuel runs out. The reaction promotes itself, and taps the fuel supply automatically. I said: There is no scientific justification for demanding the cell work "month after month" or "year after year." This is an example of an impossible goal. To be exact, I should have said "year after year -- unless there is enough chemical or nuclear fuel." My clock runs for a year with an AA battery, self-sustaining all the while, but it isn't anomalous. A uranium oxide TEC battery runs for years. It isn't anomalous today but it would have been in 1895. "Anomalous" describes the state of mind of the observer, not the phenomenon itself. Now, regarding Newman I wrote: I define a "self-sustaining" device as one which will run indefinitely without chemical fuel, solar energy, or other conventional energy inputs. And Kurtz says I have come around to his definition. Indeed I have! In this case, I do mean the term as Kurtz originally defined it. This is a special situation, because there is no fuel. I still firmly believe it is impossible. If Newman or Minato sells me a machine and it works, I'll change my mind. I suppose the Newman motor might be tapping unconventional nuclear energy, although I cannot imagine how. I would be pleased to pay $10,000 for a nuclear Newman motor. Let us remember a definition is a man-made convention, not a physical law or mathematical theorem. A term like "self-sustaining" or "over-unity" might mean something slightly different in different contexts, just as "fuel" and "burn" have different meanings in the context of a gasoline engine and a fission reactor. ("Burn" may have been technically inaccurate in 1941, but the dictionary now lists definition #3, "Physics. To cause to undergo nuclear fission or fusion.") I try to reduce confusion by sticking to a strict definition, but the Newman machine is physically impossible as far as I know, so it strains the terminology. It takes nonsense to describe nonsense. "Self-sustaining without fuel" is like "Grateful Dead" or "male menopause." There is no such thing, by definition. In retrospect, my decision not to waste a an afternoon driving to Sun City West to see the Newman demo is looking pretty good, isn't it. Yeah, I do not think you missed anything. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 15 20:58:14 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA05938; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 20:55:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 20:55:10 -0700 Message-ID: <35FF446B.999718A4 gold.globalcafe.co.uk> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 04:54:45 +0000 From: energy gold.globalcafe.co.uk (John Allan) Reply-To: energy gold.globalcafe.co.uk X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, mica@world.std.com, Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>, editor@infinite-energy.com, energy gold.globalcafe.co.uk Subject: Jed's Opinions are Irrelevant -Patent Law References: <199809150542.WAA00433 mx1.eskimo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"vG1Mv1.0.gS1.UQp_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22356 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mr. Rothwell states no one has patents for o/c. This is surely wrong. Dr Harold Aspden holds one, another members of Vortex mention one for Puharich, Minato appears to have more than one, to mention a few a number of these are internationally recognised. Mr Rothwell might even argue Mr Stanley Meyer had many. Regardless of what is for, Mr Rothwell merely tries to divert attention from the real issue. I am not surprise he finds a clearly explicit email regarding the need for professional accountability impossible to read. As the law stands, an inventor in the energy field has only three basic strategies to apply. Firstly, to play it by the rules, write it all down and face the unjust vagaries of the patent law and defence related political and corporate climate unprotected assuming every evil will befall him, or Secondly, to not sell anything but a final production unit of any such device subsequent to its approval of any such agency as required by law, to not discuss or release the details of said device with *any* parties in full or part, to not describe the full details of said device within the patent application - this can further be achieved by making a series of application leaving out small details in each, these for fear of accusation of dissemination which would weaken said and subsequent patent claims or legal defences, to not fully describe the nature or purpose of said device until at least half a dozen ages later [src: Dr Aspden's Cold Fusion patent, various], to negotiate applicable National Security Acts. Thirdly, to sell one to Mr. Rothwell, Inc for him to sell it on to any third party he wishes at a profit to teach you about capitalism. Your decision. ======================================================== That it should be necessary for any individual to face this is in 1998 without the support of a professional body is unbelievable. It is interesting to note an increase of activism in the UK in support of innovators and their rights with networks being e stablished. In further emails, I would like to look at the fallibilities of the peer review system and " virtual peer review " systems and will relate this point in advance. Cold Fusion is so unique as to require special considerations in both cases. I am grateful for Mr Soule's disclosure of Mr Newman's experiences in the real world of corporate life - one could relate *many* more enlightening cases worthy of study - and his motivation. To reform the patent office. This is surely worthy and should be supported, why should it be that hard? I understand Mr Newman has spent considerable sums of money in attempting this. Where he is already engaged in a dirty war, I would suggest another root Sun Tzu might advise. Instead of full frontal assault against an entrench and powerful enemy, just employ the services of private detectives and publicity agents to exploit the information they *will* find to establish a climate of corruption reaching right to the top - before the concept of a" privacy bill " is mooted in the States ( because surely it will come; post the cigar affair ). I would wager that this would be considerably cheaper, successful and more entertaining than a legal battle although one might need to establish a unique form of life insurance that is available on a limited basis internationally. In earnest and worthy cases, such as Dr Schwarz's and other's, a " clean fight " will prove finally successful, especially where supported by a class action or collective and co-ordinated public support on an international basis. Where there is purity an d truth, victory is assured. it make time but an enemy fighting by dirty rules finally defeats itself and loses it allies. There needs to be an international strategy because the enemy is fighting on a number of fronts and is weaker on some than others. It has weaker allies on some fronts than others and has all its might concentrated in its heartlands of DC. Mr Newman migh t just be the man to fight it out in Kursk, The Citadel, to remember one's Germano-Russian history, the rest of us would be advised to rally around this issue. On the basis of one's experience with real commanders, I fear the good army is being run by foot soldiers caught in the trenches or nose up to their nuts and bolts. I am only relieved to discover a glimmer of hope in Mr Rothwell's final statement that suggests he is starting to make sense. " Why bother fighting?!? Why don't we save the British the trouble and blow our own brains out?" Life could be so sweet. Anyone seeking to patent in the energy field should widely seek not just professional advice but professional support. Are we all going to stand around and spit at those go fight the war and dishonour those than die in the trying ? John Allan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 15 21:41:53 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA24575; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 21:40:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 21:40:13 -0700 Message-ID: <35FF4EFD.DD351C2B gold.globalcafe.co.uk> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 05:39:54 +0000 From: energy gold.globalcafe.co.uk (John Allan) Reply-To: energy gold.globalcafe.co.uk X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, Evan Soule , Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>, editor@infinite-energy.com, mica world.std.com Subject: A Warning Mr Evan Soule References: <199809150831.BAA01837 mx1.eskimo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"6oJKV3.0.v_5.j4q_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22357 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Sir, I just wanted to clarify a matter which has arisen on Vortex-L concerning comments assigned to me by members of Infinite Energy. One has only ever made statements in support and admiration of Mr Newman from the first time one was exposed to his work by Ms Jeane Mallove. She will bear witness to this. No bad reflection on his work was intended whatsoever. The campaign to highlight the unjust behaviour of the US Patent Office is highly pertinent to all working in the field of new energy. A couple of year ago, I was part of a multi-disciplinary team that collaborated to establish a seminar at the House of Lord, London, UK for a wide ranging number of professional and political interested parties in support of new energy technologies. This was to include military, political, professional and, under my own instigation, figureheads of the environmental movement. Following the untimely death of Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin, one of the major proponents, two weeks beforehand; Mr Rothwell and other uninvited parties connected to Infinite Energy Magazine took their opportunity to sabotage the event by circulating inconclusive and incomplete disinformation without legal advice and on the basis of no experimental evidence. An independent effort Mr Rothwell was " proud to boast " then and recently as " deliberate and hilarious ". I have attempted first privately and then publicly, in a reasonable fashion, to discover the full facts surrounding these event but I consider that I have been deliberately blocked, attacked, obfuscated and personally libelled, my words regularly twisted. Despite a severe inconvenience suffered by numerous professionals, some of them travelling 100s of miles, Mr Rothwell seemingly the instigator has shown no remorse whatsoever for his actions. Dr Mallove even went so far as to suggest consideration for the widow and family of Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin was " a moot point " and the event dismissed as " history ". A series of event I can document in exacting detail, it was his death bed wish that the seminar should go ahead. Being informed that both Mr Rothwell and Dr Mallove had previous incited one of the speakers privately and accosted him in public with a video camera hoping to document incriminating evidence, one saw very much the same scenario and the same players being geared up against Mr Newman. Given their expressed lack of understanding of the full issues involved and experience in the field, one felt honour bound to alert you to this. Ms Jeane Manning reports that other files were held against this inventor that included personal information even about his sex life. As extreme as this sounds, she confirmed it recently on Vortex-L. I appreciate that we have not been formally introduced in person and that this is a very extreme letter to present in the first place but until I receive copies of the written and video documentation Infinite Energy holds, it is impossible for me to judge their intent but given commercial and professional interests I have to presume some degree of competitivity or pique. Copies of emails from one collaborator shows malice aforethought in its intent to debunk the individual as a " fraud " prior to full professional investigation of his claims. Yours faithfully, John Allan Energy Solutions, 79 Pitcairn House St Thomas Square London E9 6PU. energy gold.globalcafe.co.uk T/F:+44 181 533 5880 promoting ethical and environmental solutions From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 15 22:28:07 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA06342; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 22:25:01 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 22:25:01 -0700 Message-ID: <35FF5970.1EB51581 gold.globalcafe.co.uk> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 06:23:55 +0000 From: energy gold.globalcafe.co.uk (John Allan) Reply-To: energy gold.globalcafe.co.uk X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, haspden@iee.org, mike@zenergy.com Subject: From Russia with Love Hydromagnetically Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"-uihb3.0.tY1.ikq_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22358 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Sirs, Excuse me if you have seen this already but news from the increasingly hot renergy list.. One notes the apparently international nature of problematic patent issues also in the CIS but other may have interests in anomalous magnet effects. John Allan Subject: from russia with love Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 20:02:02 -0400 From: Jon-William To: Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 17:16:34 +1000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Rcpt-To: pgb padrak.com Dear Dr. Patrick Bailey, I am addressed to you under the recommendation Alexander V.Frolov from St.-Petersburg. He told that at you has a lot of contacts. I offer you cooperation on introduction and patenting my inventions in USA, including - new source of energy. About this work you can read below. If you it will interest urgently communicate with me. Excuse for mine English. The Russian inventor offers cooperation Little bit about myself: I am 62 years old, was born in Vladivostok. I am a physicist by education. I worked in the Far - East branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Since 1985 I have been working independently as the inventor. I have more than 70 inventions and know-how(s) from household engineering up to high technologies, which I have been trying to apply in our country with huge labour. After numerous attempts to receive the patents I was convinced, that outflow of the information occured. Therefore on all inventions I has received the state certificates as on know-how ( on a French way of patenting ). The work on the theory and creation of the electrostatic generator-converter "Hydromagnetic dynamo" are conducted by me about 20 years. The first primitive experience were delivered when I worked in Academy of Sciences. During that time various changes were introduced in the generator and in the theory of its work and it is now possible to say, that the installation application and manufacture. Here I would like to offer the brief description: The electrostatic generator - converter "Hydromagnetic dynamo" works at the expense of process of strengthening(amplification) or maintenance stationary, in particular, oscillatory condition of electromagnetic field by hydrodynamic movements of conducting environment. Stator-toroid is produced from materials with high dielectric permeance(metalloceramics). A liquid rotor is " a pure(clean) water " with high-molecular connections, driven at the expense of the ordered high-voltage categories and running electromagnetic field. Note: 7 natural and chemical laws is involved in this work. Processes, occuring in the generator: Electroctatic phenomena, as in the Van der Graaf's generator, where the isolating tape is replaced with a water; Occurs infinite wash-off of a surface by electrons from dividing layer; Kulon's conversion are going on; Obvious "sucking" of free ions and electrones occurs from environmental space because of a huge electrostatic field (10 millions volt on square centimeter); Electrostatic clamp of cavitation-vacuum structures occurs in the water; And other processes. The installation works as one-circuit, the low-frequency generator in a kind of coaxial circuit with 4 resonant points and power-driven substation inside with extremely high resonant properties. For the first time I acted with the public report on this work in 1991 on a symposium in city Volgodonsk. The report received the positive recalls and reviews of the experts of a nuclear industry in USSR. The same year I was accepted International Nuclear Society. In these years I offered development as state, and private enterprises for introduction in country. But the answer was one - "It very interesting and perspective, but there is no money to financing the project". To my regret, experienced installation of the generator to keep not It was possible, for the reasons about which I can not to you now inform. At the end of 80 years I tried to transfer this technology in USA through embassy in Moscow. The former ambassador of USSR the Dr. J.Matlock knows about it. He wanted to meet me, but in that time there were forces which have not given to carry out my plans. Thus, I came to the conclusion to looking out possible investors outside. I am ready to consider any offers on cooperation: joint patenting, sale of know-how(s), creation of joint venture and etc. That is why I correspondent to your company - probably you need my knowledge more than in my native country - because speaking generally we all live in one place named Earth and all should think about our future. So, in case of your interest I am ready for further negotiations with granting all the necessary documentation and realization of these works in your country. You can write me by the address: RUSSIA, 690002, VLADIVOSTOK, Okeansky prospect, 99 - ap.112 My home phone/fax: (7-4232) 424-674. E-mail : ogri online.vladivostok.ru Cordially Yours, Oleg V. Gritskevich, Academisian Energy information Academy of Sciences Russia From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 16 00:12:20 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA00020; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 00:11:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 00:11:29 -0700 Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 01:11:46 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november Reply-To: Steve Ekwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Anomalous force acting on Pioneer, Ulysses, Galileo probes In-Reply-To: <199809140441.VAA17687 Au.oro.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"OJte4.0.A.WIs_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22359 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sun, 13 Sep 1998, Ross Tessien wrote: -=snip=- Note that the space craft are changing in radii to a substantial degree, whereas the planets are not. So that is important. And also note that for single particles, they should be able to dance around more as they are buffeted by any turbulence in spacetimes topology, and due to any flow of aether out of the system. So what is happening is that small particles are more susceptable to change in rate of the flow of aether. whereas the larger objects are more susceptable to the wave interference / filtering mechanism of gravitation. (cosmological constant component of GR and gravitational component of GR respetively). Later, Ross Tessien -=snip=- ------------------------------------------ Hi Ross, (given: OUR Sun = largest object), Once again you have me thinking 'Reversed'.. "(smaller particles lively 'dancing')/(while wave interference (side by side oceanic ships) becalm the filtered gravity.)" (Note: I know we don't have twin (pulsar) Suns!:) I was about to make the 'stupid statement' : will we or will we not, have our space orb's (satellites etc) - get pulled into the (BLOWING aethric) sun? [question 1] can we trash it into the sun? Yes, I 'see' calmed water in the aetheric ocean with wave in interference (ref: condensed gravity?). Wave interference on larger bodies creating the gravitional affects (not effects). but I wonder about SOLAR "Output" - BLOWING & thinning space/time as it were. [question 2] IF our star aetherics outpour velocity increases by its distance, (less interferring planets), shouldn't the satellite positioning be INCREASING? Blown away as it were? Sorry I haven't read the last days reports, but many satellites and vo-listers here seem to point to 'closed universe' "SLOWING", where it should be outward, and Increasing by your non-buffeted space (our universe edges & beyond). I'M assuming a rough and turbulent sea OUT there, until one appraches a mass (celestial object). (?). 'Rough', as in cross-waves (cross-talk) from 'everything else'. Thanks Best to you & yours steve (does this work BOTH ways?) ekwall p.s. this is _WAY_ over my head - hope your right! :) p.s.s. i've got it backwards again - Space is dead calm - right? From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 16 01:34:39 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA19000; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 01:33:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 01:33:16 -0700 Message-ID: <000401bde14b$a73c8500$128f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: "Vortex-L" Cc: "George" Subject: Re: Oscillating Tank Circuit for ZPE Extraction? Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 02:25:10 -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: <"vCuiW1.0.oe4.BVt_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22360 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex FWIW, if ZPE is extracted from the vacuum in the collision of an electron and proton (positive and negative electric fields, dE = h/dt) then the high electric fields created between two needle-point electrodes with fast risetime voltage applied Might pump ZPE also. >From this,an LC tank circuit set into very high frequency oscillation with a needle-point "spark gap" spaced below high field breakdown in a hard vacuum,in parallel with the LC tank circuit, Shades of Tesla's coils, :-) might pump ZPE and store it in the tank circuit where it can be bled off into an electrical load? Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 16 04:31:52 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA15254; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 04:29:12 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 04:29:12 -0700 Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 05:29:29 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november Reply-To: Steve Ekwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Spoke with Newman In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"812nr1.0.Gk3.74w_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22361 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 15 Sep 1998, Evan Soule wrote: Hal Puthoff [most snipped] >To perform these tests properly, we would require access to the motor for >about 2 weeks at our facility in Austin Texas. -snip- Sounds FAIR enough. -snip- >Best regards, >Hal Puthoff Evan Soule wrote: Dear Hal, Thanks for your response. One immediate logistical problem I note with above proposal: >To perform these tests properly, we would require access to the motor for >about 2 weeks at our facility in Austin Texas. I'm assuming then that Joe will be "moving in" to live in your laboratory during these two weeks? I am rather confident that Joe will not agree to go off and "leave" the Motor in the lab, but will insist on being present at all times (24-hours a day) with his Motor. [snip more..] --------------------------------- Whoa there, guys, {that's settle er down for easterners:} Hi guys (spit inyour eye;) <- that's a happy camper face, give me a break! There's no problem here ~short of smoke~ Hal, Evan, Newman, (sirs, everywhere et al.) [Texas being downhill from Denver :) REF: EarthTech labs:] The longer they have it, they more they'd wrote, the better all the way around!! If you can't trust a fellowman (any fellowman, you name the lab) I thought of Hal's lab as a FIRST stop for my ffSMOT for a 'unit' that could handle measurements outside of my phsyical presence.. then when THEY ( .com) were convinced, they would SEND it on to the NEXT & the next & the next ... (I've got to see IT to believe it ) on a LIST of skeptics or TUNE-IT UP pioneers! eventually ending up in Australia to recieve Greg Watson's Signature of approval. H*ll, the idea was (enclosed: return to sender) - signed by all previous skeptics (photos they kept and notes not applicable), and my little scratches "under the level bubbles" IN CASE it ever got to the smithsonian institute (hoped) with Greg's name leading the forefront. H*ll, when (if?!!) you got IT back, it would be one 'refined puppy' all ready passed in peer review! "yes, 400 # is heavy... what is the cost of shipping history?" ref:ffsmot Didn't mean it doesn't work, but, (sigh), sadly my attempt DIDN'T complete "closed looped" (yes I vered from directions) just wanted a working unit..... maybe someone can HELP as more and more is disclosed. ITS gotta start "somewhere" AND if Newman's got IT, IT is already _MORE_ the legally documented. Let it go, SEND it on, share in the updates by others. This *WILL* take MANY minds (and probably many MORE years).. Not a single endeavor (don't we all wish!) "I hereby grant all rights & monies (I should say something legaleeze here i suppose) in support of Newman delivering his machine to the WORLD, under no other understanding, that if I purchase/BUY one, it will work!" $3,000-$5,000 is ok. $10,000 tops? who knows cheaper would be better, send IT out, the price will come down & still YOU'LL be ~floating in money~! Yes, It's priceless. so are you too, but we're not forever! Did the Wright Brothers get credit for the "kite?" Do they get credit for a "cruise missle?".... NO, but he, (already Newman) *WILL* get (Documented Everywhere) credit for getting it OFF THE GROUND!!!!!!! YES!!! YES!!! He already HAS "Newman Machine" forever... documented ~30+ years~. What am I missing here?? Sounds like you both, (evan & newman) could use ALL the help you could get. I'm just saying the others on the vo-list could LEND A HAND! {that's western for getting yourself out/through of the mud:} Best to you & yours straight & simple -=se=- steve (It's Time Overdue) ekwall say, you guys aren't hiding anything behind your back (as it were) are you? "show me" True! {spit} ;) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 16 06:20:00 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA24872; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 06:18:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 06:18:51 -0700 Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 09:16:53 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Clarke-Hess PLUS battery test Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809160918_MC2-599F-11CE compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"kjiKO3.0.I46.vgx_r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22362 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Scott Little describes potential problems with a power meter: Hal & I were digging in our copy of Newman's book just today to see if the voltage spikes typically exceed 2000 volts, the rated limit of the Clarke-Hess. Unfortunately, the traces he does present don't show the actual peak values. This sounds like a can of worms. Scott: If you get a chance to test the Newman motor, I urge you to test it by draining the battery. The meter plus the battery test results together will be more convincing. The battery test requires that you estimate total output energy, which is mechanical energy plus waste heat from the motor. You could convert all output to heat by putting the machine in a box where the motor stirs the air, but I do not think that is necessary, and I fear the motor might be damaged by overheating. On the input side, I would accept the manufacturer's specifications. If anything, they may overestimate capacity. If you see 1.2 times the expected output that will prove little, but 3 times or 10 times input would be definitive. You could try to measure the battery capacity by testing it with conventional motors and heaters, but that would take weeks, so for the first approximation I would use the manufacturer's specifications. Be sure the battery is fully charged before each run. Newman told me about the Ray-o-vac test in which the battery was charged up during the run. This would be a definitive test even without the Clarke-Hess meter. You should ask him to repeat this test if at all possible. I sincerely hope that Newman allows you to test the motor, even if it means he has to camp out in your laboratory. I cannot imagine why he feels the need to watch the machine every minute of the day. Perhaps he fears you will monkey with it. Perhaps he would be satisfied with a video camera watching the machine and a clock, 24 hours a day. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 16 08:19:15 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA04868; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 08:16:59 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 08:16:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff aol.com Message-ID: <28cea553.35ffd30d aol.com> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 11:02:37 EDT To: fjsparb sprintmail.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: gsparb juno.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Re: Oscillating Tank Circuit for ZPE Extraction? Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 78 Resent-Message-ID: <"xFuXl3.0.-B1.fPz_r" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22363 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 9/16/98 2:34:43 AM, fjsparb sprintmail.com wrote: <<....an LC tank circuit set into very high frequency oscillation with a needle-point "spark gap" spaced below high field breakdown in a hard vacuum,in parallel with the LC tank circuit, Shades of Tesla's coils, :-) might pump ZPE and store it in the tank circuit where it can be bled off into an electrical load?>> Been there, done that (during our exploration of arc discharge phenomena). No o/u observed, even though we thought it was a good idea also. Hal Puthoff Scott Little From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 16 08:52:24 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA09327; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 08:49:07 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 08:49:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980916085049.00d9fb08 mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 08:50:49 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Clarke-Hess PLUS battery test In-Reply-To: <199809160918_MC2-599F-11CE compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"aVUKm3.0.cH2.mtz_r" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22364 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 09:16 9/16/98 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: >Scott Little describes potential problems with a power meter: > > Hal & I were digging in our copy of Newman's book just today to see if > the voltage spikes typically exceed 2000 volts, the rated limit of the > Clarke-Hess. Unfortunately, the traces he does present don't show the > actual peak values. > >This sounds like a can of worms. Scott: If you get a chance to test the Newman >motor, I urge you to test it by draining the battery. The meter plus the >battery test results together will be more convincing. Agreed, Jed. Having an independent measure of the total input energy will be necessary if we are going to make a definitive evaluation. You mentioned the heat dissipated by the motor, which brings up a question which Evan Soule can hopefully answer: What is the claimed C.O.P. for the latest Newman motor? At one time, I believe it was infinite...that is, the motor was purported to deliver useable mechanical energy while actually charging its battery. Is that still the claim, Evan? 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 Sep 16 10:36:34 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA00689; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 10:29:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 10:29:13 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 11:27:50 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Clarke-Hess PLUS battery test Resent-Message-ID: <"sE6th1.0.UA.LL__r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22365 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >At 09:16 9/16/98 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: > >>Scott Little describes potential problems with a power meter: >> >> Hal & I were digging in our copy of Newman's book just today to see if >> the voltage spikes typically exceed 2000 volts, the rated limit of the >> Clarke-Hess. Unfortunately, the traces he does present don't show the >> actual peak values. >> >>This sounds like a can of worms. Scott: If you get a chance to test the >Newman >>motor, I urge you to test it by draining the battery. The meter plus the >>battery test results together will be more convincing. > >Agreed, Jed. Having an independent measure of the total input energy will >be necessary if we are going to make a definitive evaluation. > >You mentioned the heat dissipated by the motor, which brings up a question >which Evan Soule can hopefully answer: > >What is the claimed C.O.P. for the latest Newman motor? At one time, I >believe it was infinite...that is, the motor was purported to deliver >useable mechanical energy while actually charging its battery. Is that >still the claim, Evan? > > >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) Yes. As Joe and Spellman (at RAYOVAC) reported, the charge coming from the operational unit was overcharging their batteries to the point where they were physically breaking down. The following is a letter sent to Spellman at RAYOVAC from Joseph Newman during the time that RAYOVAC was analyzing the effect of the Newman energy machine upon their batteries: [Note: I believe these results were based upon an earlier prototype whose design was intended to function principally as a GENERATOR rather than as a MOTOR, although the magnetic rotor did have considerable torque.] Dear Pat: Please find enclosed the 9 Volt Energizer Batteries that I have had for over two years. Also enclosed is one 6 Volt (No. B) Battery which you had sent for testing. It appears to be shorted out internally. The other test batteries, I am still using. The (A) Battery series have an average voltage of 5.9 Volts. The (B) Battery series have an average voltage of 5.8 Volts. The (C) Battery series have an average voltage of 5.8 Volts. The (D) Battery series have an average voltage of 5.72 Volts. I am very suspicious that the metal housing is having a beneficial effect because the (A) Batteries are working better than the modified batteries. The last three boxes of 6 Volt Batteries were just hooked up in series today, so I don't have info. on these. Also of interest, I observed that if I had a 40 Watt Fluorescent bulb hooked to one lead of Battery pack and then to ground, it would blink on and off for approximately 15 minutes after disconnecting batteries from the coil. Showing that the batteries had an excess charge within them and then leaked off through the bulb to ground during the 15 minute period. I have observed the batteries are lasting better with grounding out through a load some of the R.F. current generated by the system. I am up to 5,750 Volts (Hydraulic Pressure) and only 10 MA input and 160 MA (R.F.) and over 10,000 Volts output. Sincere thanks and gratitude, Joseph W. Newman Spellman of RAYOVAC also wrote the following: "The Newman machine reportedly produces an RF charge on the outside of the battery case. In that the battery is incapable of producing this by itself, it must be a result of some type of interaction between the battery and the Newman machine. Sincerely, P.J. Spellman ______________________________________ Posted by Evan Soule' From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 16 11:28:24 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA09391; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 11:24:25 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 11:24:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <005301bde18d$ead4e0e0$e58f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: "Vortex-L" Cc: "George" Subject: Re: Re: Oscillating Tank Circuit for ZPE Extraction? Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 10:20:22 -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: <"wEuuR1.0.bI2.L900s" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22367 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hal puthoff aol.com wrote: >Been there, done that (during our exploration >of arc discharge phenomena). >No o/u observed, If you were at the 3.0E6 volts/meter atmospheric corona field values which is at least 3 orders of magnitude below high field emission levels, I'm not surprised that you didn't "observe" any o/u. Only a very Hard vacuum and High frequencies will satisfy the dE = k/dt, ZPE pumping reqirement. Add to that an attempt to measure the weight of a feather on a truck scale, and what do you expect? :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 16 11:34:22 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA11179; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 11:30:56 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 11:30:56 -0700 (PDT) Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com ) Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com Message-ID: <35FFC159.FC3C6AD4 css.mot.com> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 08:47:05 -0500 From: John Steck Organization: Motorola PCS - Rapid Tooling Applications X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Discussion Group - Vortex Subject: Re: From Russia with Love Hydromagnetically References: <35FF5970.1EB51581 gold.globalcafe.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"9BekK2.0.Yk2.MF00s" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22368 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John Allan wrote: > Excuse me if you have seen this already but news from the increasingly > hot renergy list.. Boris O. Gri wrote: > The electrostatic generator - converter "Hydromagnetic dynamo" works at > the expense of process of strengthening(amplification) or maintenance > stationary, in particular, oscillatory condition of electromagnetic > field by hydrodynamic movements of conducting environment. Stator-toroid > is produced from materials with high dielectric > permeance(metalloceramics). A liquid rotor is " a pure(clean) water " > with high-molecular connections, driven at the expense of the ordered > high-voltage categories and running electromagnetic field. Thanks for posting this. Apart from this message, are there any other details or schematics posted anywhere online? Sounds very similar to something I'm working on privately. No sense reinventing the wheel..... -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John E. Steck Senior Mechanical Engineer Rapid Tooling Applications Motorola, Libertyville, IL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 16 13:00:25 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA01715; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:55:41 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:55:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 15:38:06 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Clarke-Hess PLUS battery test Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809161541_MC2-59A2-71EF compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"UjFcR.0.dQ.nU10s" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22369 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex; >INTERNET:josephnewman earthlink.net Evan Soule wrote: I believe these results were based upon an earlier prototype whose design was intended to function principally as a GENERATOR rather than as a MOTOR, although the magnetic rotor did have considerable torque. Evan: What happened to the earlier prototype? It sounds ideal for a demonstration. It proves the point without depending upon instruments. You should build twenty like that and demonstrate them all over the country. Lend them to universities and industrial labs to be tested. In a few months the whole world will believe you, the Congress will give Newman a gold medal, and the Patent Office will be eating out of your hand. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 16 13:38:43 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA10591; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 13:34:22 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 13:34:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001201bde17d$3459bda0$e58f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: "Vortex-L" Cc: "George" Subject: Re: High-Field ZPE Pumping & The Newman Motor Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 08:20:06 -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: <"G0lJl3.0.Ob2.B320s" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22370 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Speculation: If the high fields in the windings of the Newman Motor approach the 1.0E10 volts/meter level seen in high-field electron emission as in the field emission microscope, without sparkover the unit may be pumping ZPE, ie., dE*dt = k. In effect this could be done with a VHF "Tank Circuit" made by bending a wire or metal strip (superconducting ok) into a "u" shape such that the resonant frequency would be in the VHF/UHF region, and the high fields generated across the gap (dV/dt) or I = C dV/dt would pull ZPE into it. Where are all of those EEs? :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 16 18:39:52 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA25177; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 18:37:46 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 18:37:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 17:07:46 -0600 To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Clarke-Hess PLUS battery test Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"8mVEj3.0.E96.ZV60s" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22371 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >To: Vortex; >INTERNET:josephnewman earthlink.net > >Evan Soule wrote: > > I believe these results were based upon an earlier prototype whose > design was intended to function principally as a GENERATOR rather than > as a MOTOR, although the magnetic rotor did have considerable torque. > >Evan: What happened to the earlier prototype? It sounds ideal for a >demonstration. It proves the point without depending upon instruments. You >should build twenty like that and demonstrate them all over the country. Lend >them to universities and industrial labs to be tested. In a few months the >whole world will believe you, the Congress will give Newman a gold medal, and >the Patent Office will be eating out of your hand. > >- Jed Jed: The last comment you made above sounds a bit unsanitary, and I always thought a "gold star" meant more than a "gold medal" --- but, hey, whatever works! The earlier prototype(s) was(were) tested and demonstrated to many scientists who used a variety of test equipment including oscilloscope photos (I emailed Scott a number of such photos); the parts (components/wires/magnets) of those prototypes have been continually recycled by Joe as he has constructed later versions of the technology. Evan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 16 18:47:07 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA27235; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 18:43:55 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 18:43:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Chuck Davis To: Julie CC: Fredrick J Sparber Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 08:06:55 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <199809160948_MC2-59A7-58A0 compuserve.com> X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.5 [020] - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck Organization: ROSHI Corporation Subject: Fw: teeth and radiation page (fwd) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"MmvoK3.0.Pf6.Mb60s" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22372 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 16-Sep-98, Julie wrote: >Chuck:--know how to reach study author? I forwarded your post to >someone who forwarded it to someone named Penney Kome.... >Julie I don't know, Julie. Perhaps, Mr Sparber can help. Did you surf the URL in the original post? >-------------Forwarded Message----------------- >Yuck. Wonder if the current researchers know about this. :( >On Tue, 8 Sep 1998, Kome wrote: >> Hi >> Thanks for sending this. Reminds me of the Women's International League >for >> Peace & Freedom tooth collection in the 1950s that proved atmospheric a-bomb >tests >> were indeed drenching the globe with radiation, which children were >absorbing into >> their teeth and presumably bones. Hence the Partial Test Ban Treaty, which >moved >> tests underground where they merely shake the tectonic plates (which nobody >knew >> about then). Hmm, I have saved all the boys' baby teeth. Wonder if this >fellow >> wants them, as controls. >> cheers, Penney >> >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> > >> > *** Forwarded message, originally written by Frederick J Sparber on >21-Jun-98 >> > *** >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > >> > http://www.citysearchslc.com/E/E/SLCUT/0000/89/24/ >> > and this: >> > >> > Teeth studied for link to radiation exposure >> > >> > 03/21/98 >> > >> > Associated Press >> > >> > MIAMI - Researcher Jay M. Gould is gathering children's baby teeth, but >> > he's not leaving cash under their pillows. >> > >> > Gould is gathering 5,000 baby teeth as part of The Tooth Fairy Project. >> > His goal is to determine whether people who live near nuclear power >> > plants are being exposed to more radiation than others. >> >> ********************************************************* >> Penney Kome, kome shaw.wave.ca >> author & journalist. Latest book: >> Wounded Workers: The Politics of Musculoskeletal Injuries >> website: http://www.cal.shaw.wave.ca/~komepond/ >> ********************************************************* >> >> >> -- .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ -/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\-- RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \ / \_/ `-' \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' http://www.his.com/~emerald7/roshi.cmp/roshi.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 16 19:04:56 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA03921; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 19:01:42 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 19:01:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 21:28:03 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Clarke-Hess PLUS battery test Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809162131_MC2-59BA-729F compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"MzXwy2.0.6z.3s60s" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22373 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Evan Soule writes: The earlier prototype(s) was(were) tested and demonstrated to many scientists who used a variety of test equipment including oscilloscope photos (I emailed Scott a number of such photos); the parts (components/wires/magnets) of those prototypes have been continually recycled by Joe as he has constructed later versions of the technology. Oy veh! That's awful! You have an impressive report from Ray-o-vac but you destroyed the physical evidence that backs it up?!? WHY??? Don't you realize that a combination of the report plus the actual machine in action together would form a highly persuasive demonstration kit? You could open doors all over the country with that. Furthermore, if this thing is real, this prototype is a priceless historic artifact. It would be worth as much as the Kitty Hawk Wright Flyer. Tell Newman he must never do that again! Believe me, it is wretched experimental technique to destroy vital evidence of a claim just to save a little money. If Newman had lent me that machine for a few months, I could have brought him $10 million in venture capital, easily. Maybe $100 million. I am not kidding or exaggerating. Forgive me, but you people seem to have no idea how to go about convincing the public and investors that your technology is real. You have no sales strategy. The demonstration on Saturday was unorganized fiasco. I am no expert but I have organized trade show and sales presentations, and taught customer training classes. As I see it, you people made every mistake in the book. You think that someone out there is suppressing this technology. When I read that you *destroyed* a perfect demonstration system documented by a leading battery company, and you blew a public demonstration because you did not plan two weeks ahead, I am convinced that you are the main problem. You are not marketing your wares! Customers and investors are not getting the message. I have seen many wonderful conventional products fail because of poor marketing. Okay, you have an unconventional product worth trillions of dollars, but the basic rules still apply. Whether you sell apples, underwear, Windows 98, or a free energy machine that happens to be the best deal in history, you must tell your story, convince your customers, and close the sale. Look at how the Wright brothers screwed up their marketing effort for five years, and nearly lost out to their upstart competitors. They had the hottest product in history but they screwed up and almost lost their opportunity. They could have taken the Dayton photos and affidavits to their War Department contacts in 1906, arranged the demo two years earlier, and saved themselves two and half years of misery. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 16 19:10:04 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA05231; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 19:05:53 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 19:05:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3600366C.276BC3C9 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 01:06:36 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex Subject: Re: High-Field ZPE Pumping & The Newman Motor References: <001201bde17d$3459bda0$e58f85ce default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"-6aPE1.0.VH1.tv60s" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22374 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frederick J Sparber wrote: > > To: Vortex > > Speculation: > > If the high fields in the windings of the > Newman Motor approach the 1.0E10 volts/meter > level seen in high-field electron emission as > in the field emission microscope, without sparkover the unit may be pumping > ZPE, ie., > dE*dt = k. > In effect this could be done with a VHF "Tank Circuit" made by bending a > wire or metal strip > (superconducting ok) into a "u" shape such that > the resonant frequency would be in the VHF/UHF > region, and the high fields generated across the gap (dV/dt) or I = C dV/dt > would pull > ZPE into it. > > Where are all of those EEs? :-) > > Regards, Frederick Pumping the ZPE... I have no high voltage on my resonating coil experiments but instead substantial displacement currents between wiring on 10-80 MHz operating range. I expect these currents could have business with ZPE. Could it possible to generate magnetic field or electrical field turbulence or vortex? Such vortexs may create the large gradients on microscopic scale without requiring lot of power. Inertia is responsible for vortex in principle. Without mass or inertia , independent movement of fluid component could not be possible. Electric, magnetic field store energy, thus have kinda inertia, what is next requirement to obtain a vortex? Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 16 21:18:54 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA03512; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 10:33:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 10:33:32 -0700 Message-Id: <199809161436.KAA24662 mercury.mv.net> From: "Ed Wall" To: Subject: Re: Newman & Earth Tech Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 10:43:38 -0400 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: <"3afWK.0.Bo.qO__r" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22366 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Scott wrote: > If it turns out to exceed the capabilities of the Clarke-Hess, we can > always use a digital scope and monitor the V and I waveforms and multiply > them together in real time. We've explored that method quite a bit in the > past and, although it works nominally, the results are typically accurate > within only about 10% relative due to a variety of errors not the least of > which is in the scope probes. > Scott, couldn't you use a voltage divider to get the voltage into the range that the Clarke-Hess can handle and scale the power measurements accordingly? Ed Wall Lab Engineer NERL From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 16 21:51:56 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA22785; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 21:39:26 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 21:39:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <36000791.15F4 earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 13:46:42 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: McKubre: Blue: classic CF claims are sound 9.16.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"dZR4K.0.mZ5.h990s" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22376 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Subject: Re: Blue...unconvincing Date: 16 Sep 1998 09:54:59 U From: "Mike McKubre" To: 72050.2111 compuserve.com, 76002.1473@compuserve.com, akito nucl.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp, bakealamos@juno.com, blue pilot.msu.edu, bossp nosc.mil, bressani@to.infn.it, celani@frascati.infn.it, ceti msn.com, chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com, collis netcity.it, coppedge students.uiuc.edu, dashj@psu4.pdx.edu, design73 aol.com, dg cco.caltech.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, ell@lanl.gov, "francesco.premuda mail.ing.unib" , g-miley uiuc.edu, go4ceti@aol.com, griggs@mindspring.com, ikegami nifs.ac.jp, iwamura atrc.mhi.co.jp, jaeger@eneco-usa.com, jdunn@ctc.org, jjones ebs330.eb.uah.edu, jstanly@mse.ogi.edu, kirk.shanahan srs.gov, kitamura cc.kshosen.ac.jp, la@utkux.utk.edu, ldhansen chemdept.byu.edu, LForsley jwk.com, mac@iae.or.jp, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, "mel_miles imdgw.chinalake.navy." , mica world.std.com, mizuno@hune.hokudai.ac.jp, mokuniewsk aol.com, nagel dave.nrl.navy.mil, nassisi@le.infn.it, opa@aps.org, orian001 maroon.tc.umn.edu, rmforall earthlink.net, rwall@ix.netcom.com, safwanh@nol.com.jo, sanchez bosque.sdi.uam.es, sejones@physics1.ln.byu.edu, "Giovanna Selvaggi" , sphkoji sci.shizuoka.ac.jp, stoppini difi.unipi.it, storms2@ix.netcom.com, szpak@nosc.mil, takahashi bnlarm.bnl.gov, terry4@llnl.gov, TPASSELL@epri.com, tsarev x4u.lebedev.ru, tutt@wente.llnl.gov, wdmil@aol.com, wireless amigo.net, wolfy2 erols.com, z@ccyber.com, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil RE>Blue...unconvincing 9/15/98 Dear All I do not have time to enter into this debate, although I admire Ed Storms for his gentleness and perseverance. Dick Blue sometimes makes good points. Too often he pontificates erroneously; a particularly insidious combination. In the attached quote he proclaims to know "significant truths" about SRI calorimetry (yet does not know that data are plural?). For the record: 1) The correlation in our data between excess heat and current density (not current, and not first presented or discussed at Como) is linear but with a significant non-zero intercept. This is not the character of Dick's postulated crosstalk. In any case we would need to explain why this crosstalk was not present at all times, in the blanks, or in the outlet temperature sensors but not the inlet. Dick's first "truth" is a Straw Man of little substance. The significance of this correlation, both in terms of possible systematic error, or as the character of a real effect, has been analyzed and discussed by us (and others), exhaustively. The correlation of excess power with other variables, such as composition, is more significant (and fundamental?), and cannot be dismissed as "crosstalk". 2) Dick's second supposed truth "is is that the magnitude of the claimed effect diminished over the course of time as the experiments, we presume, were refined". This is not the case. Our mass flow calorimeters achieved a relatively early sophistication and we have seen large effects, and small effects. The biggest absolute excess power results were seen towards the end of our intensive calorimetric program, as were the largest fractional excess energies. The magnitude of the effect correlated more with the nature of the metal being examined than any presumed temporal effect. Dick's second truth is simply an assertion with no basis in fact. 3) Dick believes it would be "instructive" if he could see a data set for some of the extended observations. Hidden is the implication that he could perform a more able (or more objective?) job of interpretation than the SRI team who generated the data (a bait to which I will not rise). These data sets are extensive (mega-bytes and mega-points). Nevertheless, a complete data set was annotated, presented and published in our first EPRI report, and all raw data are presented in a CD ROM with our second EPRI report. 4) I cannot resist defending Mel Miles (who has been assailed with a vigor matched only by the potential significance of his results). Many people have replicated, and confirmed, the Miles-Bush-Lagowski Heat-Helium correlation. By my count 6 (mostly Italians), so far. Nothing useful is served by this level of debate, and I will not continue. Off-hand objections disguised in pseudo-authoritative tone confuse those peripherally involved; but for what purpose? A consequence, certainly, is that I am unwilling to release data until I am 100.00% certain of the facts. Denied a robust and wholesome forum to challenge preliminary thinking and data, we will resolve this issue more slowly. But to paraphrase Jean-Paul Biberian, we have the means, the time and the willingness to uncover the truth; and we enjoy the challenge. Cheers, Mike McKubre -------------------------------------- Dick Blue wrote (in part).... I believe we have here some significant misrepresentations of the facts governing the data which has accumulated. For example, in the case of the SRI calorimetry there are two significant truths which Edmund Storms overlooks. I suggest that there is an important clue concerning these data that is revealed in the first data which McKubre presented at Como in support of what was then known as cold fusion. I invite anyone to return to that data and explain the clear relationship between input current and heat output which characterized that first "successful" run. Simply stated the heat output appears to be roughly proportional to the input current which, as it happens, was varied widely during the course of the run. I have seen lots of other data from other SRI runs and other, independent investigations of the same phenomena, and I think it safe to say that no other data exhibits this behavior. Is that fact not grounds for suggesting that there is something wrong here? It seems to me quit logical to suggest that there was crosstalk between the high-level signal associated with the cell current and the low-level signal of the temperature readout. I would cast that data aside. A second truth about the SRI results is that the magnitude of the claimed effect diminished over the course of time as the experiments, we presume, were refined. McKubre also acknowledges a rather low success rate in achieving positive results, so there is ample opportunity to generate the desired result by post-selection. It would be instructive to see a complete data set for some of the extended investigations. With respect to the Miles-Bush evidence for a correlation between detected helium and excess heat, there are again some obvious questions that have legitimately been raised. Particularly in the initial experiments the experimental protocols were clearly flawed. Gas samples were accumulated and transported over considerable distances with conditions unspecified but clearly different for control samples than for the samples for effect. Since it is obviously more difficult to do mass analysis for 4He as a background in deuterium than it is for a sample that contains no deuterium, I would say that those data did not, in fact, have appropriate controls to establish that the observed helium was actually the result of CANR. Then we come to the question of calorimetry as employed by Miles and Bush. Miles, in fact, did investigate numerous error sources; and surely Edmund Storms gives him credit for having recognized error sources that have not, perhaps, been dealt with in other similar measurements. However, I suggest that Miles made one overriding error in the way in which he analyzed his own results -- misinterpreting the very error sources he demonstrates. This comes down to a question of proper error analysis as it relates to a determination of the calorimetry constant for the Miles-Bush data. This is not, I would suggest, done properly with the result that the precision of the measurements is overstated. A correct analysis likely washes out the claims for excess heat and, obviously, the correlation to helium production. Without getting bogged down in the details, let me just say that there cannot be six different calorimeter constants, but only one that is exactly appropriate to the conditions of the actual measurement for effect. Thus six different measurements to determine the said constant cannot be treated as repetitions of the measurement of a single quantity. Those six determinations of the constant demonstrate that there is a problem with the technique. Using the average with a reduction by reciprical root 6 of the error is hiding the problem. Of course one cannot overlook the fact that the Miles-Bush results have not been replicated. In fact, don't we have in the data set an experiment that says the helium produced is not released from the palladium at all, so Miles-Bush must have been seeing helium from some other source? From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 16 21:52:12 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA22723; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 21:39:27 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 21:39:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <36000405.5203 earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 13:31:33 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Blue: Storms: questions re CF 9.16.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"RnXw.0.2Y5.O990s" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22375 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Subject: Re: Storms: results suggestive of CF 9.15.98 Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 11:50:04 -0400 (EDT) From: "Richard A Blue" To: rmforall earthlink.net Edmund Storms suggests that in my rejections of assorted CANR results I am, somehow, overlooking a general pattern that indicates a real physical phenomenon. Actually what I have been trying to point out are those cases which do not, in fact, conform to any sort of pattern. It is these deviations from the pattern, whatever we deem it to be, that should arouse some interest in a critical examination by advocates of CANR, such as Edmund Storms. Too often the discussion of the specific details of a given measurement get covered over by some blanket assertion that this or that aspect fits a "pattern". Storms suggests the pattern of CANR supports the notion of there being some critical condition, perhaps a critical current density, that must be achieved before CANR will occur. I was atempting to point out that there are specific cases that speak against that notion, i.e. don't fit the pattern. Now my first example is the very first run that McKubre presented at the Como Conference so many years ago as supporting the cold fusion claims. What I wish to point out is that the "excess heat" tracks the current as it is ramped starting at ZERO and continuing to a maximum. Then when the current returns to ZERO to be ramped up a second time the excess heat follows. Is it difficult to see that this does not conform to any notion of there being a critical threshold other than ZERO? I don't know how I can explain it further, but these data do not fit any pattern that I have seen in any other experiment, including all other investigations by the SRI team. It is clearly outside the pattern and should, I believe, be considered suspect. My explanation for what is observed in this one specific example is electrical cross talk. How can you reject this as being a possibility? Certainly reference to some experiment far removed in time and place does not answer my question. In this discussion Edmund Storms touches on a very significant point when he says, "as the current is increased a greater fraction of the surface achieves the critical composition." That seems such a very reasonable picture if, in fact, there is some critical condition to be achieved before CANR occurs. However, the obvious implications of this are being overlooked. Were there actually "a critical condition" that is somehow difficult to achieve the most likely outcome of an attempt at CANR would be, as Edmund Storms suggests, a partial success in which some fraction of the cathode material for some fraction of the time enters into the magic realm. That is to say, the accumulated body of data would, most likely, include many partial successes in which "excess heat" is generated to some degree. However, my reading of the literature in this field indicates a pattern that is not, in fact, consistant with that picture. For example, Tom Droege operated a calorimeter of unrivaled sensitivity for several years in his attempts to replicate successes claimed for a variety of experimental protocols. Why did he not see just a little bit of "excess heat" in perhaps a few of his attempts? Mark McKubre informed us that he logged 100,000 hours of calorimetry that registered ZERO. He did not mention perhaps 10,000 hours that yielded a few hints of a little bit of something, but weren't enough to count as successes. Where are all the results to fill the gap between ZERO and clear success? Something is wrong, I suggest, with the statistical distribution of the data that Edmund Storms says fits a pattern if there is a threshold that can be achieved partially as he describes. At least some of the data do not support the notion that there is a critical current density. I would agree that Ed Storms data does fit a pattern which is that energy output does not track with current density (or anything else for that matter.) A signal which does not track with any of the experimental parameters is, under many circumstances, recognized as being noise. The next point I raised which Ed Storms did not grasp has to do with the multiple determinations by Miles and Bush of their calorimeter constant. I agree that if, for example, we replace a palladium cathode with a platinum cathode to make a run to calibrate the calorimeter the measurement can be repeated N times and the results averaged. Then, if the the differences are the result of random error it is appropriate to reduce the assigned uncertainty by 1/(root N). That is not, however, what was done! Suppose a second calibration run is made using a palladium cathode and H2O instead of D2O, and a third calibration run is made using a different temperature probe with some combination of cathode and or electrolyte. Now do you get my drift. The problem is there is no "correct" way to calibrate. Any change made in the configuration of the cell that may or may not shut off the CANR may also influence the calibration for reasons that have nothing to do with CANR being present or absent. The amount of electrolysis, the size of the bubbles, the placement of the temperature probe, the temperature of the electrolyte, the electrical characteristics of the electrolyte, the placement and distribution of the heat sources, etc. all can alter the calibration of the cell. Miles and Bush document many of these effects themselves. Clearly their 6 different calibration runs may differ due to systematic error -- not just random error. It simply is not a valid treatment of these data to treat the differences as a measure of the random error. There should be no 1/(root N) reduction in the estimate of the error in the average. All the calibrations could be systematically wrong by even more than the revealed differences. Now you assert that Ben Bush as replicated the helium production results at SRI. I was not aware that had been achieved, but in looking for "a pattern" I find it hard to match up Miles-Bush with Arata-Zhang. You say that Bush did not look for helium trapped in the cathode material, but if he found commensurate helium in the evolved gas it would be hard to allow for there being much more still trapped in the cathode. Now here you do one of those very nice juggling acts. You acknowleldge that Miles-Bush and Arata-Zhang are presenting conflicting claims, but suggest that the differences result for differences in experimental protocol (rather slight). Then without hesitation you assert that a totally unrelated experiment involving ultrasound somehow gives a supporting result. In otherwords small differences are more significant that great differences with respect to methods influencing outcomes! When it comes to a discussion as to how CANR can fail to meet expectations based on previous experience, how is it that nuclear separation came to be thought a significant parameter for determining reaction rates? That is not just something we pulled out of our hat. It is a recognized characteristic of reactions under a great variety of circumstances, is it not? The very obvious stability of ordinary matter with respect to nuclear reactions cannot be dismissed lightly. Were that not the norm there would be no such things as "normal isotopic abundances" to be used in the assessment of claims for massive transmutations induced by CANR. So when you, or anyone, claims that they have entered a realm in which nuclear separation distances are no longer significant there really needs to be further discussion on this precise point. I find it difficult to imagine a circumstance under which nuclear properties are subject to arbitrary change when there is no agent being offered to account for said change, or even any defining statement as to what is being changed. It becomes a situation in which changes must be arbitrarily large but with very restricted consequences. It is really the specificity of claims for CANR that shoots down many of the notions that are being circulated. For example, you seem to accept the notion that 4He is a primary product under some conditions without even a hint of its close relative 3He being produced. Yet we know in ordinary cold fusion the roles are reversed with 3He being more abundantly produced than 4He. Still you accept the notion that sometimes 3T is the product. You slip in the notion that neutron transfer is somehow involved, but that is an old idea that has never been fleshed out and, I assert, will not fly. Would you care to explain further what you have in mind to account for the various results? Dick Blue From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 16 23:19:18 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA07322; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 23:01:57 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 23:01:57 -0700 Message-ID: <36007ABB.3EB3 earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 21:58:03 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Hansen: Storms: comments on CF results 9.16.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"sPXV42.0.Fo1.JNA0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22377 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Sept. 16, 1998 quotes from post by Ed Storms Storms: results suggestive of CF 9.15.98 with comments by Lee Hansen in brackets: What I do advocate is a willingness to temporarily accept results to see if they fit a pattern. [I agree, but with the condition that results that are known to be wrong for a known reason should not be considered.] [Let's go back to Dr. Blue's original question in this discussion -- What is the source of the excess heat? If it is a nuclear reaction, what is the reaction? Is it a chemical reaction? Or is it calorimetric error? I am not being overly skeptical, those questions must be satisfactorily answered eventually.] However, Miles did measure the diffusion rate of He through glass and made this correction. Nevertheless, this preliminary work is no longer an issue in deciding the reality of the claims and should be ignored. [We agree on something!] I do not understand why Dr. Blue objects to making multiple measurements of the calibration constant in order to arrive at a value for statistical error. All measurements have random variations which are discovered in this manner. [The problem is in the assumption of randomness. If the error is not random, then the average statistic that Miles used is incorrect. Based on my experience with calorimeters that essentially duplicated the operational characteristics of Miles instruments, the calibration constant changes significantly with small changes in stirring and positioning of elements inside the vessel. The calibration constant was also inaccurate because of insufficient stirring. Miles calibration assumes that his sensor measures the average temperature of the inside boundary of the calorimeter. We showed conclusively that this assumption is false. Miles never did the checks on his calorimeters that are required to detect these kinds of errors.] On the other hand, this value does not represent the possible absolute error which would cause the calorimeter to give a bias to the measured energy value. This error is evaluated by studying material which does not make excess energy. [You are in disagreement with many studies done long before cold fusion came along that rejected the use of electrolysis as a standard method for testing calorimeters. There are just too many things that can go wrong with it. I doubt that any of these studies were ever published, but the subject has been discussed at the US Calorimetry Conference on several occasions.] Miles had many opportunities to do such tests using Pt and nonactive Pd. After showing a stable, consistent zero excess for many samples, it is reasonable, at least to me, to attribute an excess for a particular Pd sample to an unusual phenomenon rather than error; especially when this sample continued to make this excess in the absence of any obvious variation in experimental conditions. [To me, it seems more reasonable to assume the non-nuclear chemistry or the calibration constant changed in those experiments where excess heat was seen.] Dr. Blue is wrong, the Miles-Bush results have been replicated. Ben Bush repeated the measurements at SRI using a Seebeck calorimeter. [What is a Seebeck calorimeter? How was it calibrated? Were any chemical standards (acid-base reactions, or dilution reactions with known heats) run to test the accuracy? Has the study been reviewed and published?] [It seems to me that you are hypothesizing that the reaction causing the excess heat is D+D=4He or 3He + n. Were the amounts of He consistent with the amounts of excess heat? Were they quantitatively correlated as expected? Not just just number of positives and negatives?] I must wonder why it is so difficult for Dr. Blue to explore the possibility of a new phenomenon. At most we are wasting a little time if we are wrong, but just think of the possibilities if we are right. I thought scientists get a kick out of exploring new ideas. It is true that any statement, observation, or claim can be found at fault by a clever person. It is also true that suggested faults can be just as unreasonable and impossible to prove as are some claims. In addition, someone will always make a mistake or screw up a measurement. This fact can not be used to discredit all measurements. The problem is to agree on a method to arrive at the truth without such distractions. I=92m afraid we have not yet achieved such a method in this discussion. [This part of Storms statement basically repeats an argument made in a previous message that "all those results cannot be all wrong, there are just too many of them" which brings to mind a story about a real optimist. It seems there was a very optimistic young man who very much wanted a pony. He spent all year begging and pestering his parents to get him a pony for Christmas. When Christmas came, he awoke early to check under the tree, but found no pony or indication of one. Being an eternal optimist and not easily discouraged, he began checking outside where he found an enormous pile of freshly delivered horse manure that belonged to a nearby mushroom farm. He immediately ran home, grabbed a shovel, ran back to the pile and began digging furiously. When asked what he was doing, he answered, "With this much horse manure around, there has to be a pony in there somewhere". The moral of the story is that one good piece of data is worth a lot more than a whole pile of horse manure.] From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 16 23:34:30 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA11729; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 23:09:01 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 23:09:01 -0700 Message-ID: <001b01bde1e6$4706d640$258f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Subject: Re: High-Field ZPE Pumping & The Newman Motor Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 20:52:07 -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: <"F-alT.0.Bt2.xTA0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22379 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Hamdi Ucar To: vortex Date: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 8:04 PM Subject: Re: High-Field ZPE Pumping & The Newman Motor I envision a "Lecher-Line" type oscillator "Tank Circuit"something like this, Hamdi: ____________________ ______ | | | | | _________________| |______| | |_________________ |______|<--Slot | | | | |____________________| |______| |<--- 1/4 Lambda--->| This should oscillate at several Gigahertz, especially if in vacuum, and if it is made of a superconducting material it could oscillate indefinitely. With a slot measured in angstroms the fields could get up to gigavolts/meter. 1/4 wavelength at 30 gigahertz is 1/4 centimeter, so it doesn't have to be very large. :-) The impedance should be: ~= slot height/width*(377)^1/2 and a resonant frequency = 1/[2(pi)*(LC)^1/2]. Nothing magical about the Vortex, just a good way to get viscous slip which should cause some molecular collisions and small dE = h/dt ZPE pumping. Regards, Frederick Hamdi wrote: >Frederick J Sparber wrote: >> >> To: Vortex >> >> Speculation: >> >> If the high fields in the windings of the >> Newman Motor approach the 1.0E10 volts/meter >> level seen in high-field electron emission as >> in the field emission microscope, without sparkover the unit may be pumping >> ZPE, ie., >> dE*dt = k. > >> In effect this could be done with a VHF "Tank Circuit" made by bending a >> wire or metal strip >> (superconducting ok) into a "u" shape such that >> the resonant frequency would be in the VHF/UHF >> region, and the high fields generated across the gap (dV/dt) or I = C dV/dt >> would pull >> ZPE into it. >> >> Where are all of those EEs? :-) >> >> Regards, Frederick > >Pumping the ZPE... I have no high voltage on my resonating coil experiments but instead substantial displacement currents between wiring on 10-80 MHz operating range. I expect these currents could have business with ZPE. > >Could it possible to generate magnetic field or electrical field turbulence or vortex? Such vortexs may create the large gradients on microscopic scale without requiring lot of power. Inertia is responsible for vortex in principle. Without mass or inertia, independent movement of fluid component could not be possible. Electric, magnetic field store energy, thus have kinda inertia, what is next requirement to obtain a vortex? > > > >Regards, > >hamdi ucar > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 16 23:37:16 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA07365; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 23:03:06 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 23:03:06 -0700 Message-ID: <36007E7C.1312 earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 22:14:04 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Storms: Blue: care taken in CF claims 9.16.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"1egRe.0.oo1.RNA0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22378 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Subject: Blue-Storms discussion Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 20:41:16 -0600 From: Edmund Storms To: rmforall earthlink.net References: 1 9/16/98 Rich Murray et al., Well, we seem to be making some progress. This discussion is requiring both Dr. Blue and I to frame our arguments in the most basic terms, a very useful process. Let’s first talk about patterns. We need to be careful as to what we are attempting to prove by a pattern. For example, suppose I measure the superconductivity of a collection of random rocks picked off the highway. If, after making many hundreds of negative measurements, the pattern would only prove that such rocks are not superconducting, not that the phenomenon of superconductivity did not exist. Likewise, if cross-talk actually does occur, it would have to be present in most studies giving excess energy for this to be a useful explanation. If it is present in one or a few poorly done experiments, it proves nothing except that the experimenters screwed up. Let’s look at a few examples which, hopefully, we can agree as being proof for excess heat production: the SRI studies and my work, the latter chosen because I have personal knowledge of the experimental details. Dr. Blue choses to use the data presented at the Como meeting so I will start there. Figure 7 (page 435) shows a time history of excess power (EP), resistance ratio (composition) and the cell current and voltage. Excess power was first observed when the current was ramped up from 100 mA. Each time the current was returned to this value (not zero which better eyesight than Dr. Blue seems to have will show), the EP dropped to near but not equal to zero. In addition, when the current was again ramped after these low-current excursions, the EP again showed the same EP-current relationship. Insufficient data are given to identify a critical onset value. In contrast, Fig. 8 (page 437) shows a different study where no EP was seen at 125 mA. Only after the power was ramped above this value was EP produced. Again, the EP followed the changing current and stopped rising when the current was held constant, thus demonstrating that time was not having an effect. For cross-talk to be an explanation, you would have to answer several questions. 1. Why did the effect not occur below 125 mA? 2. Why was the effect not seen during the many studies using other Pd samples in the same calorimeter? 3. What error in the circuit could cause current applied to the cell to influence only the temperature sensor at the jacket outflow? Perhaps Dr. Blue is more clever than I am and can answer these questions. The SRI team continued their work beyond 1991 (the year of the meeting) using different calorimeters and different data acquisition systems while still seeing the effect only when certain palladium was used and then only when high loading was achieved. How can cross-talk be related to the D/Pd ratio of the palladium? In my case, I used an isoparibolic-type calorimeter rather than a flow-type. The calorimeter was stirred, closed and sealed, and contained at least two glass covered thermistors within the cell. Occasionally a thermistor was placed in contact with the cathode to show that EP was originating at the cathode. Calibration was done using electrolysis power applied to a Pt cathode or to the Pd sample before it became active. Any changes in calibration were detected using an internal Joule heater. Data were collected using a National Instruments system. The results of this work can be found in Fusion Technology and in Infinite Energy. The behavior I observed with respect to current-effect as well as composition- effect is totally consistent with what Mike McKubre has reported over the years. There is no conceivable way for the applied current to affect the voltage generated by the thermistors. I can only hope that this assertion can be believed in the absence of seeing the apparatus for yourself. What of the consequences Dr Blue derives from my proposal of a “magic” condition? He concludes that for this to be the correct explanation, there should be a spectrum of values such that everyone should have seen at least some effect if only they had a sufficiently sensitive calorimeter. Tom Droege’s failed attempts using a very sensitive calorimeter is given as an example of the proposed pattern not being followed. In this case, Dr. Blue creates a hypothetical pattern and then shows the proposed evidence for CANR to be faulty because the pattern does not exist. However, his is not the only pattern worth considering. All of the work I know about is consistent with most palladium being totally dead no matter what is done. A sensitive calorimeter is totally irrelevant. Only a very few samples of Pd can achieve the heat producing state and then only after they have been highly loaded. Droege did not attempt to follow the methods suggested to produce this result. Consequently, even if he were lucky to have obtained potentially active Pd, production of EP would have been even more unlikely than is normally the case. Only after suitable palladium is properly loaded does the current-EP relationship show its self. Indeed, I would expect, as does Dr. Blue, the conditions required to initiate a nuclear reaction to be very rare indeed. Otherwise, as Dr. Blue notes, the obvious stability of normal matter and isotopic ratios would be challenged. How are we to evaluate the calibration methods of Miles and, indeed, any other study? Dr. Blue is correct in saying that many uncontrolled variables can influence the calibration constant of an isoparibolic calorimeter. Flow-type and the Seebeck calorimeters are more fortunate in this respect. In the case of Miles, he used a secondary isoparibolic method in which the heat flow was measured through a thermal barrier outside of the electrolytic cell. Therefore, the effect of temperature gradient was greatly reduced, thus eliminating one of the major variables. This design is also relatively insensitive to the effect of bubbles. This being the case, the calorimeter is expected to be stable, this being the only requirement. Once calibrated, either by Joule heating or by electrolytic action, the calorimeter indicates excess power by a change in the previously zero difference between applied electrical power (VxA) and measured heat, corrected for neutral potential in their case. They were able to demonstrate, contrary to the assertions of Jones et al., that no recombination was occurring in the cell by keeping a running tally of D2O usage. Therefore, the only requirement is a stable device; the initial calibration being only required to establish the initial null condition. An error analysis needs only to demonstrate the amount of expected drift and the random error in the measurements. I think Miles et al. made a case for their claimed error. For the sake of argument, let’s suppose their error was greater than claimed. The average of all seven points combined with the He measurement is about a factor of 2 ± 2 lower than would be the case if the reaction had an energy of 24 MeV. In addition, all of the error bars overlap. Would Dr. Blue feel better if the factor were 2 ± 4? Would this prove that the measurements were faulty? The fact that they obtained less He than expected from a 24 MeV reaction is comforting to me. No doubt some of the He remained in the palladium as expected. I would have been more willing to agree with Dr. Blue if they had found more He than expected from a fusion reaction. We need to clear up a basic lack of understanding. The CANR effect can be produced using a variety of methods. Once deuterium is placed in Pd at a composition suitable to produce nuclear-active conditions, the Pd does not care how the deuterium got there. Miles-Bush, Arata-Zhang and Stringham-George each use different methods but produced the same result. Unfortunately, not all researchers measure the same consequences of the reaction. While each study has demonstrated EP production, Arata-Zhang and Stringham-George looked for He in the Pd while Miles-Bush looked for He in the gas - because the respective measurements were easier to do. This difference means nothing. Hopefully, someone will have the funding to make both measurements some day. Until then, we all will just have to be patient. Dr. Blue raises the question of how the mechanism for these strange nuclear reaction can be justified. Over 100 explanations have been offered with about a dozen being remotely credible. I have summarized some of the more useful attempts in my review, which I suggest you read before we discuss this subject in more detail. As for the nature of the nuclear products, from experimental observation using heavy hydrogen in its various chemical forms (rather than theory) I conclude that tritium can be produced but seldom during EP production; helium-4 can be produced and this seems to have a direct relationship to EP; Helium-3 has been detected and its relationship to the conditions is still in doubt; no significant gamma emission is seen although some low- level emission has been occasionally detected; no significant neutron emission is seen but, again, occasionally some low-level emission consistent with the energy expected from “normal” fusion is detected. When studied in vacuum, emission of p+, d+, t+ and, perhaps, alpha have been claimed. All of these products are expected, only their intensities relative to each other are abnormal. Is this a reason to reject all of the claims? If not, which sould we keep? If all of the claims are accepted, I are forced to conclude that several nuclear reactions are possible depending on the particular chemical conditions within the nuclear-active region. Doesn’t this add more than you wanted to know? Light-hydrogen and the transmutation conditions are another ball of wax I will leave for future discussions. Regards, Ed Storms By the way, I’m comfortable being called Ed and it takes less typing. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 16 23:41:29 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA02137; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 23:39:01 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 23:39:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <36004421.B7F29DFF gold.globalcafe.co.uk> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 23:05:37 +0000 From: energy gold.globalcafe.co.uk (John Allan) Reply-To: energy gold.globalcafe.co.uk X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: $10,000 legal warning/credit union alternative Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"GJt5c2.0.FX._vA0s" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22380 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Sirs, I thought about this offer of $10,000 for a working device and must profess concern. • Tell anyone to lease on a contract but never sell. Establish a pure trust organsiation to own the property of it in perpetuity would be the best practice. Perhaps we should think this through. What would be the value of an original model of such a device that brought the most fundamental laws of physics to the ground? I will check with Christie's for the value of a comparable object, say Harrison's chronometer. I would guess that it is in the millions now. I knew of some acquaintances of Einstein by the name of Shapley, Americans, that stole some of his papers and later sold them on for a figure in the high $100,000s. I can find out the exact sum, would not have anything to do with the old man. Wonder if this offer of Mr Rothwell's is really so generous or ethical, one would really encourage an inventor in the situation of having to see a device to survive poverty to consider again. It would be hard to respect a man who knows how to exploit the capital value of such a device and is independently wealthy to retire early, to exploiting vulnerable and sincere inventors at their time of greatest need and while on the cusp of success. Lambs to the slaughter at the hands of a capitalist all over again and bad for the field. This is the history of energy science all over. And given they would certainly endanger their legal this needs serious consideration. If anyone is in such a situation please ask them to speak to me first, I am sure that it would be possible to find some other form of support. • Surely if Mr Rothwell and others are in a position to financial assist individuals in such a position he could consider the establishment of a welfare trust. • Surely to contribute in spirit alone is sufficient enough reward and interest free loans could be made within the context of a credit union or co-operative bank. • Surely if one is only thinking of the interest of one's own estate, to leave behind such a trust or pure trust organisation would be reward enough. Goodwill and fundamental assistance nourishes the spirit. Look at the example of Carnegie, Peabody or the great Quakers. • Surely others would want to contribute to build up such a trust that protect the interests of those which we are ultimately dependent rather than the investor world. And even more enlightened individual would understand the need to support a fertile support culture. In the same way that a farmer understand to plant clover first provides the cover and nourishment to the corn growing up, an arts council invests in subculture knowing that some of it will mature to be high art or a breeder builds up a stable. Industry and academia would not be interested in that, the system is more suited to thieves of genius or servants of the establishment. It requires philanthropy and mutual support mechanisms. Instead, all we have are bounty hunters looking for trinkets or game, butchers looking to cut off a the first fine steak for themselves and those that enjoy cutting down tall poppies as sport. All self interest... sad reflection it is all we have produced after all these years. Instead of doing PR for non-existenttechnology, could fundimental issue of wefare not be addressed. Perhaps this is something a professional body could address. I know that there are individuals that would support it if it was done properly and not as a business. We all do. • Isn't this worth discussion seriously? Of course, it would require honesty of the individuals entrusted with responsiblity. John Allan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 00:15:53 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA16627; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 00:11:38 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 00:11:38 -0700 From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: One test after another . . . Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 01:57:43 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <36006b22.74816609 mail-hub> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"R7yF83.0.a34.dOB0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22381 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 15 Sep 1998 14:45:44 -0600, Evan Soule wrote: [snip] >Apparently you have not read Joseph Newman lengthy discussion of why "one >cannot simply feed the generated, output current back into itself, >eliminating the need for an external battery." I refer you to Section 21, >page 58 of his book. [snip] Hi Evan, I have always assumed (I haven't read Joe's book) that it wasn't possible to use a capacitor because the power in the back emf wasn't sufficient to keep the device running. However it seems to me that if Joe's motor truly puts out more external energy than is put into it, then perhaps it could be made self sustaining by attaching a normal dynamo to the shaft, and augmenting the energy stored in the capacitor with the output from the dynamo. I feel sure that everyone on this list would feel satisfied with such a demonstration, and it appears to me to be relatively easy to do. Has Joe ever done such a test, or discussed it that you are aware of? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 00:31:49 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA28237; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 00:27:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 00:27:10 -0700 Message-ID: <3600AC7C.FFD2CF03 axionet.com> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 23:30:20 -0700 From: Jeane Manning X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: what happened to vortex B? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"KxV4T.0.bu6.BdB0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22382 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I lurk on Vortex because I want to learn about scientific developments and processes from frontier scientists. As a sociologist/journalist, I don't have much to contribute to discussions about the hard sciences, so I just read and enjoy. But I've seen something definitely un-Vortexian in recent weeks. In brief, if I had any role in introducing John Allan to the list, then I apologize to long-time Vortexians. His post today includes yet another malicious misrepresentation ..."reports that other files were held against this inventor that included personal information...she confirmed it recently on Vortex-L." Once again, that's untrue. I don't know of anyone holding files "against" any inventor. Check the archives to see what I did say. John Allan is misquoting me again. I can't stop the nonsense he's spreading elsewhere, but do we have to read it on Vortex? My big mistake, which I deeply regret, 6+ months ago while in England, was to mention in a conversation with John Allan that some years ago I'd received a letter which spread a rumor about Stan Meyer. Foolishly trusting and assuming that I'd be heard correctly and in the spirit of "let's try to understand this saga, with compassion for all concerned", I made that careless remark about that old letter. A big mistake from several standpoints, gossip being one of them. John Allan is distorting and greatly enlarging on my mistake for his own reasons. I know nothing about "files held against the inventor". John Allan continually seems to be trying to make allegations about some mysterious "secret files". I don't know about any secret files. However, I have to thank John Allan for reinforcing what I already knew -- that I should never make a careless remark and that I shouldn't be so trusting, regardless of how personable, persuasive or intelligent a person seems in the first meetings. Basically, I've re-learned to keep my mouth shut. I realize this type of communication doesn't belong on Vortex, so I'll return to ignoring the nonsensical posts. And sadly I realize that John Allan probably won't ever give it a rest, for his own reasons which seem to have less to do with vindicating Stan Meyer and more to do with revenge. I'll just unsubscribe if he continues to ruin this list with misquotes and misrepresentations and using my name to support his imaginary scenarios. It's been a no-winner. Best wishes to all flame-free Vortexians, Jeane Manning From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 00:45:40 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA04319; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 00:41:46 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 00:41:46 -0700 Message-ID: <36008F9C.65C0 keelynet.com> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 23:27:08 -0500 From: "Jerry W. Decker" Reply-To: jdecker keelynet.com Organization: KeelyNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freenrg-l eskimo.com CC: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: John Hutchison Contact Info Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"kcGD_1.0.l21.sqB0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22383 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Folks! Mark Solis shares the following Hutchison contact info; =================== The following web pages have been updated: John Hutchison's Web Page http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/8863/index.html Beyond The Cutting Edge http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/8864/index.html John Hutchison can be reached via E-mail at either of these addresses: john_hutchison geocities.com john_hutchison usa.net Your time and attention are both greatly appreciated. -- Jerry Wayne 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 Thu Sep 17 00:45:45 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA04522; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 00:42:02 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 00:42:02 -0700 Message-ID: <36008E53.7AA9 keelynet.com> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 23:21:39 -0500 From: "Jerry W. Decker" Reply-To: jdecker keelynet.com Organization: KeelyNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: KeelyNet DallasTexas.net CC: vortex-l eskimo.com, freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Rolling Ball website Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"LKclF1.0.U51.2rB0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22384 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Folks! The following was sent in and I'm posting it here so all can check it out. Highly reminescent of the TOMI and the SMOT with some new twists. ==================== Anyone researching the pre-history of modern devices based on magnetic ramps with accelerated steel balls may find David M. MacMillan's Rolling Ball Web page of considerable interest. The URL is http://www.database.com/~lemur/rb-index.html It presents a wealth of information about rolling-ball clocks, rolling-ball sculptures, and rolling-ball perpetual motion machines. For example, it discusses the work of Johannes Taisnier (a.k.a. Taisnierus), a Jesuit Priest of the sixteenth century. He designed a device in which a steel ball ascended a magnetic ramp, fell through a hole, and returned to the bottom of the ramp to begin the cycle anew. Whether he actually built such a device is not known. -- Jerry Wayne 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 Thu Sep 17 03:52:48 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA11435; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 03:50:43 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 03:50:43 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 06:00:41 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Clarke-Hess PLUS battery test Resent-Message-ID: <"tW_Hy1.0.bo2.2cE0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22385 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >To: Vortex > >Evan Soule' writes: > > The earlier prototype(s) was(were) tested and demonstrated to many > scientists who used a variety of test equipment including oscilloscope > photos (I emailed Scott a number of such photos); the parts > (components/wires/magnets) of those prototypes have been continually > recycled by Joe as he has constructed later versions of the technology. > >Oy veh! That's awful! You have an impressive report from Ray-o-vac but you >destroyed the physical evidence that backs it up?!? WHY??? Don't you realize >that a combination of the report plus the actual machine in action together >would form a highly persuasive demonstration kit? You could open doors all >over the country with that. Furthermore, if this thing is real, this prototype >is a priceless historic artifact. It would be worth as much as the Kitty Hawk >Wright Flyer. At the time of its construction/operation, a number of scientists tested and verified the operation of the system in accordance with Joseph Newman's principles. Joe kept a number of the earlier motors intact for as long as he could and then he had (for financial reasons) to recycle the parts from one earlier design into a later design. Joe is not interested in making "kits." He wants to go into full-scale production. Others have approached him about making kits themselves -- and his reaction is, fine, let's discuss "kit production". But after making the initial suggestion about "kits," the individual never follows through with his offer to build them. Jed, you may or may not be being sarcastic about the above "priceless historic artifact" remark. From Joe's perspective, he _does_ believe that, yes, the artifacts were (historically) priceless, but the "here and now" dictated that he use the parts for more advanced designs. Of the largest unit -- the 12,000+ plus design featured in LIFE Magazine and elsewhere -- only the fiberglass housing remains. All the copper, magnets, connectors have been recycled. He has a rather poignant (from his perspective) inscription on that housing regarding the fact that the original Motor/Generator had to be torn apart to be used in later designs. > >Tell Newman he must never do that again! Believe me, it is wretched >experimental technique to destroy vital evidence of a claim just to save a >little money. If Newman had lent me that machine for a few months, I could >have brought him $10 million in venture capital, easily. Maybe $100 million. I >am not kidding or exaggerating. > >Forgive me, but you people seem to have no idea how to go about convincing the >public and investors that your technology is real. You have no sales strategy. >The demonstration on Saturday was unorganized fiasco. I am no expert but I >have organized trade show and sales presentations, and taught customer >training classes. As I see it, you people made every mistake in the book. You >think that someone out there is suppressing this technology. When I read that >you *destroyed* a perfect demonstration system documented by a leading battery >company, and you blew a public demonstration because you did not plan two >weeks ahead, I am convinced that you are the main problem. You are not >marketing your wares! Customers and investors are not getting the message. I >have seen many wonderful conventional products fail because of poor marketing. >Okay, you have an unconventional product worth trillions of dollars, but the >basic rules still apply. Whether you sell apples, underwear, Windows 98, or a >free energy machine that happens to be the best deal in history, you must tell >your story, convince your customers, and close the sale. Look at how the >Wright brothers screwed up their marketing effort for five years, and nearly >lost out to their upstart competitors. They had the hottest product in history >but they screwed up and almost lost their opportunity. They could have taken >the Dayton photos and affidavits to their War Department contacts in 1906, >arranged the demo two years earlier, and saved themselves two and half years >of misery. > >- Jed I'll put it this way: _within the confines of the parameters_ set by Joe, we do the best we (myself, Darryl Bonz, Milton Everett, and others) can. You can argue, if you wish, that Joe "micro-manages." You can argue that "Joe proceeds with seemingly reckless abandon". You can argue that "Joe is an overly optimistic budgeter" and "does not properly reckon on Mr. Murphy's ability to throw a monkey wrench into the soup at the last minute." You can argue that "Joe is his own worst enemy." Having been at this for 15 years, I can probably provide you with a few arguments that you have not even considered. I honestly believe I have just about heard it all, seen it all, and pretty much 'been there, done that.' Funny thing .... for me, Joe is the SECOND (what I would consider) eccentric and major innovator with which I have worked in my life. I directly worked for 12 years with another. He passed away about a year ago, and I am now engaged with others in helping to bring forth and preserve at least a part of the incredible quanitity of his life's work. [This is another story which goes FAR beyond the purview of the subject of this particular List, so I won't describe the specifics, only how it applies here.] BTW, for what it's worth, I consider this other individual to be a major COSMOLOGICAL INNOVATOR and minor Technological Innovator, while I consider Joe to be a major TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATOR and minor Cosmological Innovator. These are obviously my opinions. It will be up to "history" a century or more from now to give all of this a better time-scale perspective. Anyway, the M.O. for this other individual was to plan, plan, and plan --- to the point of total frustration of those around him (although those who worked with him had personal affection for him as a human being). His thinking, lecturing mind was unceasing -- usually 20+ hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. About 25,000 people were directly exposed to some aspect of his work, and many of his ideas have already "filtered out" into society at large. Anyway, let's say that the challenge put to this individual and also to Joseph Newman was "to build a railroad bridge across a deep ravine." This innovator's approach would be: 1) Present a year-long seminar on the cosmological significance of railroad building and the history of transportation as it relates to innovation; 2) Investigate, for several years, ALL possible combinations of metals with respect to bridge construction (and, what the hell -- give a year long seminar on the history of the innovation of metal alloys, while you're at it!); 3) After several more studies and investigations, construct the railroad bridge out of the finest most durable materials known to our species; 4) When the bridge is constructed (after another 3 years) drive a remote-controlled 100-car freight train with each car loaded with 100 tons of lead across the bridge. IF and ONLY IF the bridge holds -- then at THAT point drive a human-controlled train across the railroad bridge. I would have no doubt that the bridge would still be standing the "day our sun novas" ... that is, if it ever got built in the first place! There are those who would say that Joe would take a different approach to the railroad bridge. There are those who might maintain that he would proceed to simply begin running towards the open ravine and FULLY anticipate that a bridge would be constructed under his feet as he ran! :-) Obviously, the above examples are somewhat exaggerated to prove a point: that these two approaches are rather different. I would happily settle for something in between -- but that's not what "life" has dished out at the moment. So, one does the best one can. ERS _____________________________ I just received the following from Donny Appelbaum of Florida who returned from Arizona: "Dear Evan, I would like to relate to you the experience that I had at the Sun City Grand demonstration in Phoenix Arizona. We had traveled to Phoenix to view the demonstration of Joseph Newman's latest prototype of the Motor/Generator. This one promised to be an advancement over the crude home built model shown in Joe's book. I had heard about the motor and the technology from a friend who had a print out off of the Internet. I read the information and immediately went to the Internet to find out everything I could about the technology. We went to the library and found a copy of Joe's book at the Tulane University Library in Mississippi, which they forwarded to us in Florida and I read it and re-read if for about 3 weeks. Evan Soule', the director of information for Joseph Newman Technologies Corp. kept me well informed and updated. So when Evan notified us that there would be a demonstration presentation in Phoenix Arizona on September 12th 1998, I made plans to go. The motor Joe had on display at the demonstration was sleek and compact and quite an advancement in design, but it was not running. During Joe's talk to the audience he explained the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the construction of the motor. Basically the motor company hired to build the motor had attempted to grab the technology and sabotage Joe's efforts to bring the motor to the public. Joe had visited the motor company and corrected their wiring errors, supplied magnets for the motor, assembled it and had it running. Upon his return to the motor company a few days later, he found that they had disassembled the motor and cut the internal wiring. Joe quickly removed the unit from their shop and brought it to Arizona for the demonstration. At the time of the demonstration the motor was not yet repaired and operational. Needless to say this was quite a disappointment to me and to everyone at the demonstration. We all knew that the motor worked as Joe had said, but we wanted to see it and experience it. After all a picture is worth a thousand words and an experience is worth a thousand pictures. Joe promised to have the motor operational by Monday for those who want to stay over. We decided to stay. By Monday afternoon Joe arrived with the motor and was ready to demonstrate it's power. He brought it to the Quality Inn where those that had remained in Phoenix during the weekend gathered for the experience. The motor was badly damaged by the motor company and was binding along the armature against the casing, but Joe and Milton Everett tapped the end bearing plates and turned the shaft searching for that critical spot where everything was mechanically aligned and the armature would free-wheel by hand. That spot was never found, but Joe, knowing the power of the motor, elected to run the motor for us even in this crippled condition. Twenty-four 6 volt drycell batteries was used for the battery pack. An ammeter placed in line with the battery pack to measure the current draw from the motor, and Joe started it up. Finally I was able to see it run, and even in it's crippled state of operation, it was amazing. The rpms of the shaft, which normally would be 600 to 700 rpms was a very slow 80 to 95 revolution per minute. That would be my best guess from watching the shaft. We each took turns trying to choke it down. We had a pair of gloves and we attempted to squeeze the shaft and put some strain on the motor. The motor drew 1.7 to 2 amps and no matter how hard we tried we could not slow the motor down at all and the current draw remained steady throughout all of our attempts. We even tried to hold the shaft and then start the motor and there was absolutely no stopping it, and realize this was at a very low shaft rotation. We operated the motor off and on for about an hour while we listened and talked with Joe about the motor, and about the possibilities it would provide for mankind, about manufacturing projections and plans, and about the amazing power produced by the immense magnetic field of this motor. This motor was sleek and powerful and absolutely quiet. Compared to the models in the book it was like a surfboard to a piece of plywood. It became obvious to me that from here on we can expect to see production. The time has truly come for the technology that Joe has understood and taught to manifest into products that we will be able to purchase and utilize in our lives. Joe's exciting plans for the 10K and 20K home power plants will just be the beginning. And for me, although Joe has been at it for over 20 years, this is the beginning and I am absolutely thrilled to be able to be a part of it. To see that motor come alive with the intense power that was at the shaft, and knowing, because I now understand the theory behind the motor, that the motor will continue to run with no need for additional fuel supplied from outside. The road to a pollution free, ultra modern society with unlimited energy potential, is incredible beyond words. The only words that I can really say are Thank You God." Best Regards Donny Appelbaum From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 03:54:41 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA11822; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 03:51:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 03:51:07 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 06:01:08 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: One test after another . . . Resent-Message-ID: <"wkSJu3.0.eu2.QcE0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22386 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >On Tue, 15 Sep 1998 14:45:44 -0600, Evan Soule wrote: >[snip] >>Apparently you have not read Joseph Newman lengthy discussion of why "one >>cannot simply feed the generated, output current back into itself, >>eliminating the need for an external battery." I refer you to Section 21, >>page 58 of his book. >[snip] >Hi Evan, > >I have always assumed (I haven't read Joe's book) that it wasn't >possible to use a capacitor because the power in the back emf wasn't >sufficient to keep the device running. >However it seems to me that if Joe's motor truly puts out more >external energy than is put into it, then perhaps it could be made >self sustaining by attaching a normal dynamo to the shaft, and >augmenting the energy stored in the capacitor with the output from the >dynamo. >I feel sure that everyone on this list would feel satisfied with such >a demonstration, and it appears to me to be relatively easy to do. >Has Joe ever done such a test, or discussed it that you are aware of? > > >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk Dear Robin, Please read Section 21, starting on page 58 of his book. It is a question of "timing." If you have understood what he has described in detail, and you believe that you have discovered a method to circumvent the "braking" problem he describes, then please call Joe up at: (602) 977-2813 (Phoenix), or (602) 583-4333 (Phoenix), or (303) 814-3403 (Castle Rock) and express your idea to him. Sincerely, Evan Soule' From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 05:38:33 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA05766; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 05:37:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 05:37:55 -0700 Message-Id: <199809171232.IAA08126 mercury.mv.net> Subject: Re: what happened to vortex B? Date: Thu, 17 Sep 98 08:37:13 -0000 x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: "E.F. Mallove" To: "VORTEX" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Resent-Message-ID: <"RQC0Z3.0.0Q1.ZAG0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22387 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jeane wrote: >I lurk on Vortex because I want to learn about scientific developments >and processes from frontier scientists. As a sociologist/journalist, I >don't have much to contribute to discussions about the hard sciences, so >I just read and enjoy. But I've seen something definitely un-Vortexian >in recent weeks. In brief, if I had any role in introducing John Allan >to the list, then I apologize to long-time Vortexians. Your apology accepted. > >His post today includes yet another malicious misrepresentation >..."reports that other files were held against this inventor that >included personal information...she confirmed it recently on Vortex-L." Yes, and he has written to me privatey about the Trilateral Commission, BIlderbergers, etc., etc. ad nauseum. Needless to say, I have not replied. > >Once again, that's untrue. I don't know of anyone holding files >"against" any inventor. Check the archives to see what I did say. John >Allan is misquoting me again. I can't stop the nonsense he's spreading >elsewhere, but do we have to read it on Vortex? Yes, Allan's reply was total misrepresentaiton of what Jeane said! > >My big mistake, which I deeply regret, 6+ months ago while in England, >was to mention in a conversation with John Allan that some years ago I'd >received a letter which spread a rumor about Stan Meyer. Foolishly >trusting and assuming that I'd be heard correctly and in the spirit of >"let's try to understand this saga, with compassion for all concerned", >I made that careless remark about that old letter. A big mistake from >several standpoints, gossip being one of them. John Allan is distorting >and greatly enlarging on my mistake for his own reasons. >I know nothing about "files held against the inventor". John Allan >continually seems to be trying to make allegations about some mysterious >"secret files". I don't know about any secret files. There are no secret files and Allan knows it, but it serves his silly purpose to go on expostulating about them. > >However, I have to thank John Allan for reinforcing what I already knew >-- that I should never make a careless remark and that I shouldn't be so >trusting, regardless of how personable, persuasive or intelligent a >person seems in the first meetings. Basically, I've re-learned to keep >my mouth shut. Jeane, you just go on being your lovely self. It is not your fault that you occasionally run into creeps that continue to stick like tar babies. After all, I did once too - a thoroughly dishonest ego-manical publisher (now in various states of declared personal and corporate bankurptcy) known as Wayne Green! > >I realize this type of communication doesn't belong on Vortex, so I'll >return to ignoring the nonsensical posts. And sadly I realize that John >Allan probably won't ever give it a rest, for his own reasons which seem >to have less to do with vindicating Stan Meyer and more to do with >revenge. I'll just unsubscribe if he continues to ruin this list with >misquotes and misrepresentations and using my name to support his >imaginary scenarios. It's been a no-winner. Well, we learned a lot about pathological mentation. > >Best wishes to all flame-free Vortexians, >Jeane Manning Best to all, Gene Mallove > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 06:39:59 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA30347; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 06:39:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 06:39:16 -0700 Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:37:41 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Message from Mike B. Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809170939_MC2-59CB-620 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"nXIdf.0.tP7.24H0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22388 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Mike Butcher sent me this. He says he cannot communicate directly with Vortex. I have been ignoring Allan's posts. I did not realize he again accused Jeane Manning of hiding secret sex scandal files. Jeane is a kind & gentle soul who does not deserve this treatment. She wrote: I'll just unsubscribe if he continues to ruin this list with misquotes and misrepresentations and using my name to support his imaginary scenarios. It's been a no-winner. VortexB-L was reopened to take care of this problem. Let us use it, and not drive off readers with offensive garbage about hidden sex files. Let's have some decorum around here! We are not the U.S. Congress. Speaking of which, Soo Seddon sez: "They re-printed the whole Starr Report in the English Sunday 'Observer' newspaper....... in the Sports Section!!!!" - Jed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: 17-Sep-98 04:46 EDT From: "Mike" > INTERNET:michael kuyper.org Subj: Re: what happened to vortex B? Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:46:25 +0100 >I lurk on Vortex because I want to learn about scientific developments >and processes from frontier scientists. As a sociologist/journalist, I >don't have much to contribute to discussions about the hard sciences, so >I just read and enjoy. But I've seen something definitely un-Vortexian >in recent weeks. In brief, if I had any role in introducing John Allan >to the list, then I apologize to long-time Vortexians. Etc. Just a short note to say I totally agree and would love to say the same on Vortex (it just bounces my posts as for some reason it thinks I don't subscribe ?? Very frustrating) I met John Allen at a London meeting some months ago, if it is truly our opinion that the world has a power shortage problem it probably pales into insignificance compared to Allan's perceived personal shortage. In my opinion he is using the Free energy field/environmental movement to further his political goals and I suggested to Soo at the time. This is of course was just my first impression and I would not have given much credence to my evaluation as I think it fair to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. However I am more confident about my original impressions following the threads of his posts these last few weeks. Splendidly Jed made him look a fool - not good for a budding world leader's ego. Since then his posts have really been about the evils of the capitalist system as personified by Jed and how we really need a compassionate Social Trust to protect the vulnerable from Rothwellian type monsters. But who could he possibly suggest to run or organise such a system ? Anyway, I hope Jed will keep up the good work. Mike Butcher (A frustrated Vortex receiver of messages but crippled contributor) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 08:46:34 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA11029; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 08:41:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 08:41:40 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980917090928.00da37e4 mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:09:28 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Newman & Earth Tech In-Reply-To: <199809161436.KAA24662 mercury.mv.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"qHVen3.0.5i2.osI0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22389 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:43 9/16/98 -0400, Ed Wall wrote: >Scott, couldn't you use a voltage divider to get the voltage into the range >that the Clarke-Hess can handle and scale the power measurements >accordingly? Yes, but it's not trivial to make a really accurate one. The high frequency components of the signal "see" the capacitance of the resistors and divide according to the overall impedance of each resistor, not just it's DC resistance value. Still, that IS the way to handle such a situation. It seems to me that if we just need a factor of two, we could construct a highly symmetrical divider using two identical resistors and it would be pretty much guaranteed to divide things in half no matter what the frequency. 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 Sep 17 09:05:42 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA23271; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:04:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:04:22 -0700 Message-ID: <3601322D.AC7AF86D verisoft.com.tr> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 19:00:45 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Newman & Earth Tech References: <3.0.1.32.19980917090928.00da37e4 mail.eden.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"01jyS.0.Vh5.5CJ0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22390 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Scott Little wrote: > > At 10:43 9/16/98 -0400, Ed Wall wrote: > > >Scott, couldn't you use a voltage divider to get the voltage into the range > >that the Clarke-Hess can handle and scale the power measurements > >accordingly? > > Yes, but it's not trivial to make a really accurate one. The high > frequency components of the signal "see" the capacitance of the resistors > and divide according to the overall impedance of each resistor, not just > it's DC resistance value. Still, that IS the way to handle such a situation. > [snip] What is needed exactly is measuring/monitoring the current flow of the battery. This can be done by inserting a resistor < 1R to the path and shunting with parallel capacitors (1u+10n+100p, all high voltage, high current) which take the average of the current. Large positive high spikes on battery voltage could be ignored to expense of back power. What I am expecting, which is not really wanted on measuring is unstable RF oscillations on the power signal. If this will happen, no power measurement device could operate without filtering them. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 09:06:01 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA23300; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:04:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:04:29 -0700 Message-ID: <3600D345.1030E9EB verisoft.com.tr> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 12:15:49 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: High-Field ZPE Pumping & The Newman Motor References: <001b01bde1e6$4706d640$258f85ce default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"9Cvhy3.0.-h5.BCJ0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22391 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Frederick, Instead of U, may a tank formed by just two parallel plates at 1/2 Lambda work. Did you see the connection with Casimir force? If flat surface are not required for oscillation (only ease the impedance calculation) parallel cylindrical wires also may oscillate ( actually everything oscillate at some frequency when properly excited :) ) and such parallel cylindrical wires are abund ant on coil wiring. What do you think? Could 1/2 lambda and full lambda Lecher-Line oscillator can be formed on coil wiring? A full wavelength oscillator will look like two parallel ring with peripheral of 1 lambda. Could it be? If a transient propagate trough a coil it may invoke the Lecher-Line mode oscillations. may wire thickness is critical to obtain suitable Q. I working with thin wires around 24 AWG, may thicker ones is needed. Regards, hamdi ucar Frederick J Sparber wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hamdi Ucar > To: vortex > Date: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 8:04 PM > Subject: Re: High-Field ZPE Pumping & The Newman Motor > > I envision a "Lecher-Line" type oscillator "Tank Circuit"something like > this, Hamdi: > ____________________ ______ > | | | | > | _________________| |______| > | |_________________ |______|<--Slot > | | | | > |____________________| |______| > > |<--- 1/4 Lambda--->| > > This should oscillate at several Gigahertz, especially if in vacuum, and if > it is made of a superconducting material it could oscillate > indefinitely. > > With a slot measured in angstroms the fields could get up to > gigavolts/meter. 1/4 wavelength > at 30 gigahertz is 1/4 centimeter, so it doesn't have to be very large. :-) > > The impedance should be: > ~= slot height/width*(377)^1/2 > and a resonant frequency = 1/[2(pi)*(LC)^1/2]. > > Nothing magical about the Vortex, just a good > way to get viscous slip which should cause some molecular collisions and > small dE = h/dt ZPE > pumping. > > Regards, Frederick > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 09:09:52 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA25864; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:08:36 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:08:36 -0700 Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:09:50 -0700 Message-Id: <199809171609.JAA10038 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: SOHO update Resent-Message-ID: <"W6iUq3.0.tJ6.2GJ0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22392 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: SOHO is now pointing toward the sun again, as of 9/16 http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/ Not much news other than that, but at least finally the heaters and instruments ought to benefit from proper solar orientation, and the panels ought to fully charge the batteries. Ergo, an evaluation of how many instruments were damaged ought to follow in the coming days / weeks. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 09:22:49 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA30422; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:21:50 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:21:50 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980917112505.00da3188 mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 11:25:05 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Clarke-Hess PLUS battery test In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"nyO8h1.0.GR7.USJ0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22393 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 06:00 9/17/98 -0600, Evan Soule wrote: >I just received the following from Donny Appelbaum of Florida who returned >from Arizona: >Basically the motor company hired to build the >motor had attempted to grab the technology and sabotage Joe's efforts... >At the time of the demonstration the motor was not yet repaired... >The motor was badly damaged by the motor company and >was binding along the armature against the casing... It should be noted that, if Joe Newman brings his motor to EarthTech for evaluation, problems like the above will NOT slow us down significantly. We have a complete machine shop here. A photo of part of it can be seen at: http://www.eden.com/~little/shop1.jpg Applebaum goes on: >Twenty-four 6 volt drycell batteries was used for the battery pack. >... a very slow 80 to 95 revolution per minute. >The motor drew 1.7 to 2 amps and no matter how hard we tried we >could not slow the motor down at all That's not surprising. Twenty-four 6 volt batteries in series at 2 amps is 288 watts, which at 85 rpm is about 21 ft-lbs (29 newton-meters) of torque (assuming the Newman motor is 90% efficient). Most folks could only exert a 2 or 3 ft-lb drag on a smooth shaft wearing gloves and the motor would not slow perceptibly under such a small load. 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 Sep 17 09:33:24 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA02919; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:31:36 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:31:36 -0700 Message-Id: <199809171632.LAA12737 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 11:31:25 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: Message from Mike B. Resent-Message-ID: <"n3LP.0.5j.bbJ0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22394 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: [snip] >I met John Allen at a London meeting some months ago, if it is truly our >opinion that the world has a power shortage problem it probably pales into >insignificance compared to Allan's perceived personal shortage. In my >opinion he is using the Free energy field/environmental movement to further >his political goals and I suggested to Soo at the time. This is of course >was just my first impression and I would not have given much credence to my >evaluation as I think it fair to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. >However I am more confident about my original impressions following the >threads of his posts these last few weeks. > >Splendidly Jed made him look a fool - not good for a budding world leader's >ego. Since then his posts have really been about the evils of the capitalist >system as personified by Jed and how we really need a compassionate Social >Trust to protect the vulnerable from Rothwellian type monsters. But who >could he possibly suggest to run or organise such a system ? > >Anyway, I hope Jed will keep up the good work. > >Mike Butcher >(A frustrated Vortex receiver of messages but crippled contributor) That's very interesting. I sent a message about a week ago which went off normally (no autoresponder message telling me that it didn't get through) but never appeared on the group. I had simply assumed that the "monitoring" had crossed the line into censorship, as expected, and had determined that I would not post here again. If that is not what is going on, then what is the correct explanation? --Mitchell Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 10:50:46 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA29108; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:47:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:47:23 -0700 Message-ID: <002a01bde262$629bec20$87b4bfa8 default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Subject: Re: High-Field ZPE Pumping Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 11:41:17 -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: <"pBrga3.0.h67.giK0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22395 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Hamdi Ucar To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Thursday, September 17, 1998 10:06 AM Subject: Re: High-Field ZPE Pumping Hamdi wrote: >Hi Frederick, > >Instead of U, may a tank formed by just two parallel plates at 1/2 Lambda work. Did you see the connection with Casimir force? You need the "U" to complete the current path, I'm told that a "Donut" shaped superconductor will oscillate for decades if started by running a magnet past it. Yes, an interesting similarity between the U and the casimir plates. Are they oscillating too? :-) >If flat surface are not required for oscillation (only ease the impedance calculation) parallel cylindrical wires also may oscillate ( actually everything oscillate at some frequency when properly excited :) ) and such parallel cylindrical wires are abundant on coil wiring. You can use the calculations for a open two-wire transmission line for L, C, Z, and propagation velocity. The movable shorting bar makes it a Lecher Line. > >What do you think? Could 1/2 lambda and full lambda Lecher-Line oscillator can be formed on coil wiring? You want as high a frequency as practical to get the dt in the equation dE = h/dt as small as possible thus centimeter wavelengths at up to 30 gigahertz(1 cm) would be desirable. > >A full wavelength oscillator will look like two parallel ring with peripheral of 1 lambda. Could it be? I guess so. > >If a transient propagate trough a coil it may invoke the Lecher-Line mode oscillations. may wire thickness is critical to obtain suitable Q. I working with thin wires around 24 AWG, may thicker ones is needed. > >Regards, > >hamdi ucar > >Frederick J Sparber wrote: >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Hamdi Ucar >> To: vortex >> Date: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 8:04 PM >> Subject: Re: High-Field ZPE Pumping >> >> I envision a "Lecher-Line" type oscillator "Tank Circuit"something like >> this, Hamdi: >> ____________________ ______ >> | | | | >> | _________________| |______| >> | |_________________ |______|<--slot | | | | >> |____________________| |______| >> >> |<--- 1/4 Lambda--->| >> >> This should oscillate at several Gigahertz, especially if in vacuum, and if >> it is made of a superconducting material it could oscillate >> indefinitely. >> >> With a slot measured in angstroms the fields could get up to >> gigavolts/meter. 1/4 wavelength >> at 30 gigahertz is 1/4 centimeter, so it doesn't have to be very large. >> >> The impedance should be: >> ~= slot height/width*(L/C)^1/2 >> and a resonant frequency = 1/[2(pi)*(LC)^1/2]. >> >> Regards, Frederick >> From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 11:08:27 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA32645; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:54:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:54:10 -0700 Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 13:52:31 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Message from Mike B. Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809171354_MC2-59D1-4F83 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"gqkCt.0.-z7.1pK0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22396 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Mitchell Jones writes: I sent a message about a week ago which went off normally (no autoresponder message telling me that it didn't get through) but never appeared on the group. That happens to me all the time, most recently this morning. I had simply assumed that the "monitoring" had crossed the line into censorship, as expected . . . What monitoring? Expected by whom? This forum has never been censored. There is nothing in the charter or the rules about censorship. Why do you think Bill Beaty has the time or the inclination to violate the rules he himself set? If that is not what is going on, then what is the correct explanation? It is a technical glitch. It happens all the time with Internet forums and e-mail. I recommend you save a copy of your message until you see it come back from Vortex. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 11:12:14 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA00255; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:56:08 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:56:08 -0700 Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 13:52:42 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Storms - Blue debate Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809171356_MC2-59CC-AA86 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"LoU6V2.0.u3.tqK0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22397 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex [I posted this before but it disappeared. Apologies if this is the second copy.] Does this debate serve a purpose? Here are diametrically opposite points of view. Storms: Well, we seem to be making some progress. This discussion is requiring both Dr. Blue and I to frame our arguments in the most basic terms, a very useful process. McKubre: Nothing useful is served by this level of debate, and I will not continue. Off-hand objections disguised in pseudo-authoritative tone confuse those peripherally involved; but for what purpose? Okay, here are my two cents. I agree with McKubre. The debate is educational for people who have not read the literature. It is useful for those who have never thought through the ABCs of cold fusion. But this is slow, difficult, fragmented way to learn about the subject. Why not read the original papers instead? Everything revealed in this debate has been common knowledge, available at the library for years. McKubre's papers published five years ago proved that Blue's claims are nonsense. Anyone can see that the effect cannot be crosstalk, and it is not correlated with the sensitivity of the instruments. Blue knows nothing about the experiments. He makes up facts as he goes along to fit whatever wild notions enter his head. Debating with him is a waste of time, *except when it educates other readers*. The same can be said for Morrison. The only positive contribution he ever made to this field was the time he conducted a written debate with Fleischmann. Fleischmann cut him to shreds, revealing how incredibly misinformed and inept Morrison is. That was a public service, but I see no point in repeating it endlessly. Morrison knows nothing about cold fusion but he understands politics, and he has been careful to keep his head down ever since. He never again challenged Fleischmann or any other CF scientist with a technical critique. He avoids specifics. He never discusses data, electrochemistry or calorimetry. He has confined his attacks to ad hominem, rumors, distortions, ridicule, plasma fusion theory unrelated to cold fusion, and other evasive nonsense which cannot be challenged or debated. Blue does not keep his head down. He repeats the same mistakes year after year. It is a cinch to prove he is wrong, but why bother? It is a sterile waste of time. Storms is wrong; we are not making progress with Blue, and we never will. Blue along with the other hardcore skeptics will never learn, never read the literature, and never admit they are wrong. They must be swept aside with commercial technology. (By the way, anyone who would like to see the Morrison - Fleischmann debate should contact me for an e-mail copy.) - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 12:29:39 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA31196; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 12:25:56 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 12:25:56 -0700 Message-ID: <36016174.5085BAF8 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 22:22:28 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: High-Field ZPE Pumping References: <002a01bde262$629bec20$87b4bfa8 default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"2GwAL3.0.Dd7.39M0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22398 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frederick J Sparber wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hamdi Ucar > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Date: Thursday, September 17, 1998 10:06 AM > Subject: Re: High-Field ZPE Pumping > > Hamdi wrote: > > >Hi Frederick, > > > >Instead of U, may a tank formed by just two parallel plates at 1/2 Lambda > work. Did you see the connection with Casimir force? > > You need the "U" to complete the current path, I'm told that a "Donut" > shaped superconductor > will oscillate for decades if started by running a magnet past it. If you have an H by combining two Lecher-Lines back to back and and allowing oscillation on reverse phase on the other resonator, currents passing though H center will cancel each other, and you dont need the connect two plates. This was that I thought. I t become an 1/2 lambda resonator with unconnected two parallel plates. > > Yes, an interesting similarity between the U > and the casimir plates. Are they oscillating too? :-) What will be the Lorentz forces applied to plates of Lecher-Line on a given energy. May be same calulation of Casimir forces- energy relation. > > You can use the calculations for a open two-wire transmission line for L, C, > Z, and propagation velocity. The movable shorting bar makes it a Lecher > Line. > > Yes. I am gonna wound a coil which may exhibit this mode of oscillations. Did you noticed my previous results with flat coils. These ones was small, and the Lecher-Line mode oscillations were too high to excite or observe, I gonna wound a new bigger one allowi ng oscillations below 100MHz. What I am insisting on coils is they are easy to excite and resonate, on resonance, it forms good electric magnetic fields and this ones could excite higher frequency of resonances which interfere with ZPE. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 13:28:54 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA23014; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 13:26:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 13:26:42 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com ) Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com Message-ID: <360170C6.7EAABBB1 css.mot.com> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:27:50 -0500 From: John Steck Organization: Motorola PCS - Rapid Tooling Applications X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Discussion Group - Vortex Subject: OFF TOPIC IRONY - US Political Quote of the Century Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"qiZOe3.0.Wd5.12N0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22399 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I just got this sent to me moments ago. What irony if the quote can be verified as legitimate. This is one TV news clip I would love to see on the 10 o'clock news tonight..... Apologies to the non-US subscribers as I realize this is not the correct forum, I just had to share. 8^) ROLF ! ->> QUOTE OF THE CENTURY <<- "Yes, the President should resign. He has lied to the American people, time and time again, and betrayed their trust. Since he has admitted guilt, there is no reason to put the American people through an impeachment. He will serve absolutely no purpose in finishing out his term, the only possible solution is for the President to save some dignity and resign." - 1974 Arkansas 12th Congressional District Hopeful William Jefferson Clinton on the Nixon investigation -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John E. Steck Senior Mechanical Engineer Rapid Tooling Applications Motorola, Libertyville, IL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 14:29:15 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA15831; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:26:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:26:28 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 16:36:17 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Clarke-Hess PLUS battery test Resent-Message-ID: <"QevrA1.0.Bt3.3wN0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22400 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >At 06:00 9/17/98 -0600, Evan Soule wrote: > >>I just received the following from Donny Appelbaum of Florida who returned >>from Arizona: > >>Basically the motor company hired to build the >>motor had attempted to grab the technology and sabotage Joe's efforts... > >>At the time of the demonstration the motor was not yet repaired... > >>The motor was badly damaged by the motor company and >>was binding along the armature against the casing... > >It should be noted that, if Joe Newman brings his motor to EarthTech for >evaluation, problems like the above will NOT slow us down significantly. >We have a complete machine shop here. A photo of part of it can be seen at: > >http://www.eden.com/~little/shop1.jpg > >Applebaum goes on: > >>Twenty-four 6 volt drycell batteries was used for the battery pack. > >>... a very slow 80 to 95 revolution per minute. > >>The motor drew 1.7 to 2 amps and no matter how hard we tried we >>could not slow the motor down at all > >That's not surprising. Twenty-four 6 volt batteries in series at 2 amps is >288 watts, which at 85 rpm is about 21 ft-lbs (29 newton-meters) of torque >(assuming the Newman motor is 90% efficient). Most folks could only exert >a 2 or 3 ft-lb drag on a smooth shaft wearing gloves and the motor would >not slow perceptibly under such a small load. > > > >Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.eden.com/~little >Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA >512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email) Dear Scott, I find this an interesting comment from Donny Appelbaum: "The motor drew 1.7 to 2 amps and no matter how hard we tried we could not slow the motor down at all and the CURRENT DRAW REMAINED STEADY throughout all of our attempts." Evan Soule' Regarding the effect of the high-voltage spark gap, there is a theory floating around that may explain where the excess energy is coming from. The theory says that if an atom is subjected to an externally applied force that deforms the atom, energy will be drawn in from the zero point field to restore symmetry. Applying a strong electric or magnetic field may have such an effect. When the force is removed, the atom is left with more energy than it had before. Breaking the current in a coil induces a very large electric field throughout the coil due to the collapsing magnetic field, thus deforming the copper atoms and drawing in energy. The energy is somehow released after the initial voltage spike settles out, possibly in the form of an increased back-EMF or extra "push" on the rotor. I think this is how Newman's, Gray's and Adam's motors may produce OU power. The effect may work with capacitors as well as with inductors, but I haven't seen any purely capacitive OU devices. Let me know what you think. -RJB From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 14:46:25 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA26002; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:45:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:45:10 -0700 Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 17:43:57 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Clarke-Hess PLUS battery test Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809171745_MC2-59D4-4147 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"Y813n.0.AM6.aBO0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22401 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Evan Souls writes: Jed, you may or may not be being sarcastic about the above "priceless historic artifact" remark. From Joe's perspective, he _does_ believe that, yes, the artifacts were (historically) priceless, but the "here and now" dictated that he use the parts for more advanced designs. No, I was not being sarcastic. I do not believe the Newman machine works, but if it does it should be preserved. I do not believe the "here and now" "dictated" this insane vandalism. Destroying the machine was a thoughtless act which defeated Newman's own stated purposes. He could easily have used that machine to raise money. I could raise millions of dollars within weeks with it. (Assuming, of course, it is real!) Any businessman could. This would be more than enough money to pay for materials to build other prototypes for the rest of his life. If you people do not understand how to go about raising capital, you need to read some books from the library and talk seriously to someone who does. You can call me if you like, at 770-451-9890. You and Newman may understand physics, and you may be right about these theories of yours which make no sense to me, but you should realize that when it comes to business you are babes in the woods. I am no world-class mogul, but I know the fundamentals of business & marketing. I can sure tell you how to run a trade show demo better that Saturday's fiasco! Don't let pride prevent you from asking people for help. Just because you understand this machine, don't imagine that you also understand business. Ask anyone for help; it doesn't have to be me. I will not help much in any case, as long as I remain convinced the machine is bogus. Joe is not interested in making "kits." He wants to go into full-scale production. Others have approached him about making kits themselves This is a fatal error. It does not matter what he is interested in or what he wants to do. He must do what he can with the materials at hand. He must establish credibility and attract capital to accomplish his larger goals. He is no position to tell investors or potentials customers what he will or will not do. He does not have the money to go into full-scale production, so he must first raise the money, which means he must attract serious investors. Later, perhaps he can work his way up into full-scale production, if that is his long term goal. He cannot leap directly to the goal, he must take intermediate steps that will lead to it. I'll put it this way: _within the confines of the parameters_ set by Joe, we do the best we (myself, Darryl Bonz, Milton Everett, and others) can . . . You should concentrate your efforts on changing these parameters. Joe is obviously your biggest roadblock. You can argue, if you wish, that Joe "micro-manages." You can argue that "Joe proceeds with seemingly reckless abandon" . . . Yes, that is how I would describe Saturday's non-demonstration, and the destruction of a working prototype. Look Evan, you are Newman's friend. You have worked long and hard to help him, and sacrificed much of your own life and perhaps your wealth. I urge you to *help him*. Get the message through to him. He must learn from history. His present tactics will not succeed. Thousands of people have invented wonderful machines only to die in obscurity because they never learned how to market their ideas. Newman is making the same mistakes these other people made, right down the line. He is a classic case. He will not build credibility; he will not attract capital; he will never break out of this trap he has built for himself. If you are his true friend you will bend every effort to help him. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 15:03:18 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA02606; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:00:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:00:23 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 17:10:17 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Clarke-Hess PLUS battery test Resent-Message-ID: <"ctP8o3.0.Ue.sPO0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22402 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >To: Vortex > >Don't let pride prevent you from asking people for help. Just because you >understand this machine, don't imagine that you also understand business. Ask >anyone for help; it doesn't have to be me. I will not help much in any case, >as long as I remain convinced the machine is bogus. > > snip--- > >- Jed Dear Jed, Pride has nothing to do with it. Since you admit that you do not understand the technology, then your opinion that you believe the machine is "bogus" is meaningless to me. If you wish to try to assist then here is Joseph Newman's telephone numbers: (602) 977-2813 (Phoenix), or (602) 583-4333 (Phoenix), or (303) 814-3403 (Castle Rock) Call him up! Suggest your proposal to him. If you choose not to do this then I guess we can "jawbone on this List until the olde cows come home." Evan Soule' From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 15:14:22 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA09624; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:13:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:13:16 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980917171632.00da49e8 mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 17:16:32 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Clarke-Hess PLUS battery test In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"Y-o9n2.0.IM2.xbO0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22403 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 16:36 9/17/98 -0600, Evan Soule wrote: >"The motor drew 1.7 to 2 amps and no matter how hard we tried we could not >slow the motor down at all and the CURRENT DRAW REMAINED STEADY throughout >all of our attempts." It is apparent from the statement above that Appelbaum considers a reading that stays between 1.7 and 2 amps to be "steady". That range is big enough to include the current variations that would be expected from the relatively small load presented by a gloved hand grabbing a smooth shaft. 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 Sep 17 15:30:22 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA19344; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:28:36 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:28:36 -0700 Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:28:40 -0400 From: Soo Subject: OFF TOPIC IRONY - US Political Quote of the Century Sender: Soo To: "INTERNET:vortex-l eskimo.com" Message-ID: <199809171829_MC2-59D4-9032 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id PAA19311 Resent-Message-ID: <"smhhH1.0.4k4.KqO0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22404 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John < What irony if the quote can be verified as legitimate.> This one has been widely quoted in the UK press since the start of Zippergate. But it would be fun to hear a fresh-faced Dirty Bill actually saying it on the record. Snippets from the Brit. Press............ "President Clinton last night met Czech leader Vaclav Havel - and looked set to make ANOTHER grovelling apology over Zippergate. Scores of angry women protesters picketed the White House as the two men talked. They waved placards declaring: "Sexual predator" and "Close - but no cigar."" ++ "Bill Clinton swears, rants and raves during the devastating Zippergate video that last night looked set to be the final nail in his Presidency. The four hour tape shows the President sweating as he is grilled about kinky sex with Monica Lewinsky." ++ "Clinton explodes in anger when asked about the infamous cigar incident involving a crude sex game." ++ "He is later seen ripping off his microphone and snapping at his lawyer. They leave for an hour before Clinton, ashen-faced and angry returns in front of the camera." +++ What I want to know is.....if he's indicted on eleven counts, does it automatically become twelve if the cigar turns out to have been Cuban?? - Soo From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 15:37:48 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA23018; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:34:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:34:35 -0700 Message-ID: <360181AE.6B30 earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 16:39:59 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Storms: Hansen: comments 9.17.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"yhoQR1.0.Xd5.wvO0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22405 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Subject: Re: Hansen debate Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:02:19 -0600 From: Edmund Storms To: rmforall earthlink.net 9/17/98 Dear Rich Murray, Dr. Hansen raises some issues about which we completely agree. 1. Results known to be wrong for a known reason should not be considered. Of course, we may differ as to whether the reasons actually justify the rejection. 2. Yes, we need to determine whether the heat is chemical, nuclear or just plain error. Of course, judgement plays a role in such a decision. If in a person’s judgement, a nuclear reaction is impossible based on previous experience, then we are left with the other two possibilities. We need to agree about how to make a rational choice between these possibilities without being influenced by this bias. 3. Yes, random error is only part of the total error. The problem is to evaluate the nonrandom part of the error. Granted, electrolysis is a less than ideal method to calibrate a calorimeter. I have made an extensive study of the problems associated with this method and can now eliminate many of the problems. Mike McKubre has also done such a study using his calorimeters. This background allows us to override many of the past reasons to reject this method. Even so, there will be a lower limit to the ability to detect heat which is much higher than the state-of-the-art using other techniques. The question is, “is the sensitivity and stability sufficient for our particular purpose?” My answer is yes! If Dr. Hansen wants come to his own answer, he must become more familiar with our studies without the bias of needing to find errors so that cold fusion can be rejected. Simply assuming excess heat is caused by calibration error without any evidence is not a rational approach. 4. A Seebeck calorimeter (aka Kelvin Calorimeter) is designed so that heat loss is transported through tightly packed transducers, which convert the heat flow to a voltage. Thermocouples are frequently used as the transducers. The method is very sensitive and stable, is immune to conditions within the calorimeter such as gradients, and gives absolute values without calibration once the characteristics of the transducers are known - much in the same manner that thermocouples give reliable temperatures when conversion tables are used. The study has been described at several meetings, and the results can be studied in the ICCF-7 Proceedings. Unfortunately, the work has not been published in a reviewed journal for reasons unique to the field. This work combined with the independent study by Miles-Bush shows a good correlation, not “just a number of positives and negatives” and is consistent with the reaction D+D=4He without gamma emission. You can find an evaluation in 21st Century Sci. and Technol, summer 1998, page 15 or in my review which will be in the next issue of Infinite Energy. 5. Yes, “a good piece of data is worth a lot more than a whole pile of horse manure”. Of course, but horse manure is a lot easier to spot. Regards, Ed Storms From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 16:02:51 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA01152; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:59:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:59:13 -0700 Message-ID: <36018779.5F83 earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 17:04:41 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Hansen: Storms: detailed comments on calorimetry 9.17.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"FKvkZ2.0.sH.0HP0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22406 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Subject: Storms: Blue: care taken in CF claims 9.16.98 -Reply Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:18:36 -0600 From: "Lee HANSEN" To: rmforall earthlink.net [Comments from Lee Hansen in brackets.] How can cross-talk be related to the D/Pd ratio of the palladium? [The simplest explanation is that the one lot of Pd catalyzed a chemical reaction that did not occur with the other lots.] In my case, I used an isoparibolic-type calorimeter rather than a flow-type. [The word isoperibol means "constant surroundings" and has nothing to do with whether the calorimeter is a flow calorimeter or not.] The calorimeter was stirred, closed and sealed, and contained at least two glass covered thermistors within the cell. [What principle was used to measure the power? Heat conduction, power compensation, or from the temperature rise and heat capacity?] Occasionally a thermistor was placed in contact with the cathode to show that EP was originating at the cathode. [At most, this could only prove that heat was being generated at the cathode, not that there was excess.] Calibration was done using electrolysis power applied to a Pt cathode or to the Pd sample before it became active. [Use of electrolysis for calibration assumes that the reaction was quantitative and known. Was any analysis done to show that there was not simply a change in the chemistry when the cathode became "active"?] Any changes in calibration were detected using an internal Joule heater. [How do you know that the heater was accurate? Did the calibration by electrolysis give the same value? Were any chemical calibrations done with standard reactions? Did the calibration constant vary with heater power?] Data were collected using a National Instruments system. The results of this work can be found in Fusion Technology and in Infinite Energy. The behavior I observed with respect to current-effect as well as composition- effect is totally consistent with what Mike McKubre has reported over the years. There is no conceivable way for the applied current to affect the voltage generated by the thermistors. [Voltage is not generated by thermistors. I assume you mean the unbalance voltage in a Wheatstone bridge or similar circuit. I also assume this voltage is a function of temperature. I can think of two ways for the electrolysis current to affect the apparent temperature. If there is any AC component in the electrolysis current it can leak into the thermistor circuit and cause an increase in the self-heating which will appear as an apparent increase in temperature. Such cross talk will not be detected by the DC circuit. Changing the electrolysis current could change the stirring in the vessel by changing the bubbling and flow patterns. Changing stirring even by small amounts can change the self-heating in the thermistor and cause changes in the apparent measured temperature. Neither of these are far-fetched, I've seen such effects in isoperibol solution calorimeters, both lab built and built by Hart and Tronac. Changing the stirring also changes the distribution of heat in the vessel which can also affect the heat measurement.] I can only hope that this assertion can be believed in the absence of seeing the apparatus for yourself. [There's the rub. I have trouble believing that any of the claims of excess power are not either due to normal chemistry or to calorimetric error. No matter how hard you work at the calorimetry there will always be an element of doubt. Take it from someone who has done calorimetry on a daily basis for nearly 40 years -- There are probably more ways to screw up a calorimetric measurement than anything else. The only way you are ever going to prove you are looking at a nuclear reaction is to find and identify the products of the reaction and show they are directly proportional to the heat effect measured carefully by all three methods of heat measurement, and give me good enough directions so that I can reproduce the whole thing.] Indeed, I would expect, as does Dr. Blue, the conditions required to initiate a nuclear reaction to be very rare indeed. Otherwise, as Dr. Blue notes, the obvious stability of normal matter and isotopic ratios would be challenged. [Again, this sounds very much like a catalyst for a chemical reaction.] How are we to evaluate the calibration methods of Miles and, indeed, any other study? [I have suggested numerous times that there are standard chemical reactions that can used to test calorimeters. Why doesn't anyone use them?] Dr. Blue is correct in saying that many uncontrolled variables can influence the calibration constant of an isoparibolic calorimeter. [Miles calorimeters were isoperibol, heat-conduction calorimeters.] Flow-type and the Seebeck calorimeters are more fortunate in this respect. [That is incorrect.] In the case of Miles, he used a secondary isoparibolic method in which the heat flow was measured through a thermal barrier outside of the electrolytic cell. Therefore, the effect of temperature gradient was greatly reduced, thus eliminating one of the major variables. This design is also relatively insensitive to the effect of bubbles. This being the case, the calorimeter is expected to be stable, this being the only requirement. Once calibrated, either by Joule heating or by electrolytic action, the calorimeter indicates excess power by a change in the previously zero difference between applied electrical power (VxA) and measured heat, corrected for neutral potential in their case. [That is also incorrect. We showed that designs similar to Miles were subject to up to 40% systematic error even with reasonably efficient stirring. Miles were stirred only with bubbling from electrolysis. Because the errors became larger as we decreased the stirring, there is no telling what the errors in Miles measurements were, but his calibration data shows they were large enough to cover his entire claims of excess heat.] They were able to demonstrate, contrary to the assertions of Jones et al., that no recombination was occurring in the cell by keeping a running tally of D2O usage. [I doubt the measurements of D2O usage were accurate enough to tell whether or not there was significant recombination.] Therefore, the only requirement is a stable device; the initial calibration being only required to establish the initial null condition. [Miles calorimeters were not stable. Any slight shift in sensor position, heat distribution, etc. caused a shift in the calibration constant.] An error analysis needs only to demonstrate the amount of expected drift and the random error in the measurements. [Wrong again. You are assuming random error, which was not the case.] I think Miles et al. made a case for their claimed error. For the sake of argument, let=92s suppose their error was greater than claimed. The average of all seven points combined with the He measurement is about a factor of 2 =B1 2 lower than would be the case if the reaction had an energy of 24 MeV. In addition, all of the error bars overlap. Would Dr. Blue feel better if the factor were 2 =B1 4? Would this prove that the measurements were faulty? [The problem is that the calorimetric data do not provide any proof there was ever any excess heat.] The fact that they obtained less He than expected from a 24 MeV reaction is comforting to me. No doubt some of the He remained in the palladium as expected. I would have been more willing to agree with Dr. Blue if they had found more He than expected from a fusion reaction. [Where did the He come from? The data do not convince me they came from the electrolysis cell. I could speculate on several other sources, but then I would only be accused of being too skeptical. But once you remove the selection by excess heat, how do you select which are controls and which are samples. That was not decided before the experiment.] We need to clear up a basic lack of understanding. The CANR effect can be produced using a variety of methods. Once deuterium is placed in Pd at a composition suitable to produce nuclear-active conditions, [You are assuming a nuclear reaction!] the Pd does not care how the deuterium got there. Miles-Bush, Arata-Zhang, and Stringham-George each use different methods but produced the same result. [Which was?] Unfortunately, not all researchers measure the same consequences of the reaction. While each study has demonstrated EP [There we part company. I don't think so.] production, Arata-Zhang and Stringham-George looked for He in the Pd while Miles-Bush looked for He in the gas - because the respective measurements were easier to do. This difference means nothing. Hopefully, someone will have the funding to make both measurements some day. Until then, we all will just have to be patient. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 16:31:51 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA14187; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 16:28:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 16:28:07 -0700 Message-ID: <36018E2F.5682 earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 17:33:19 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Murray: Rothwell: value of skeptic-believer dialogue 9.17.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"fsFaH.0.JT3.4iP0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22407 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Sept. 17, 1998 Hello, Jed Rothwell has posted a sour assessment of the current debate among Dick Blue, Ed Storms, and now Lee Hansen about whether some of the classic cold fusion claims, especially Miles, McKubre, and Arata, are strong enough to at least justify continued exploration. He feels this debate is sterile, due to the incompetence and blindness of the skeptics-- I'm summarizing his views in my words, here. As a pragmatic skeptic, I am resigned to the probability that no cold fusion effect exists. I am willing to facilitate lucid and civil debates that at least make the topic legitimate for discussion, perhaps attracting fresh talent into the tired ranks of the current players, that air out some of the artifacts that might explain some of the reported anomalies, that give newcomers a feel for many of the issues and difficulties over the over nine years of work, without the confusion of the mutual demonizing that has impeded cooperation and alienated outsiders. Do any currently active and independently replicted experiments display any anomalies? Has Claytor's deuterium gas discharge production of tritium been replicated? Can he reproduce his own results? Has anyone heard from Robert Bush, whose cell was proclaimed in Infinite Energy early this year? Rich Murray Room For All 1943 Otowi Drive Santa Fe, NM 87505 505-986-9103 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 16:58:49 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA23771; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 16:54:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 16:54:15 -0700 Message-ID: <3601A04E.73A64792 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 02:50:38 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex Subject: [off topic] Intense radiation around Europa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"nrOLj.0.Gp5.c4Q0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22408 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi all, I encountered this info from NASA news mails: Subject: Los Alamos Receives NASA Funding To Test Critical Instrument Components For Possible Use On Future Europa Mission Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 18:05:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Ron Baalke >> Another obstacle is making sure the IPR survives Jupiter's intense radiation that surrounds Europa, he added. "The radiation around Europa measures about 25 megarads per month. That's enough radiation to fry a desktop computer in about five minutes," he said. << I did know the presence of a radiation around Europa until now. I never encountered such a info on Nasa sites. This is strange. Both the radiation and missing information. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 17:10:42 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA32490; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 17:09:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 17:09:35 -0700 Message-Id: <199809180010.TAA23495 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 19:09:21 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: Message from Mike B. Resent-Message-ID: <"85r2o.0.Zx7._IQ0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22409 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A >To: Vortex > >Mitchell Jones writes: > > I sent a message about a week ago which went off normally (no > autoresponder message telling me that it didn't get through) but never > appeared on the group. > >That happens to me all the time, most recently this morning. > > > I had simply assumed that the "monitoring" had crossed the line into > censorship, as expected . . . > >What monitoring? ***{I had been told that this group wasn't monitored, but that the threat that it would be (by Bill Beaty, presumably) kept the tone of the posts at a higher level of civility than is the norm for usenet. Thus reassured, and with considerable trepidation, I subscribed. Result: the first thing I saw was a bunch of snarling exchanges over trivia of the sort which would be more normal on sci.physics.fusion, followed by a message from Bill Beaty stating that not monitoring the group had obviously failed, and monitoring would be resumed. I guess you missed all that, Jed, though I don't see how. --Mitchell Jones}*** Expected by whom? ***{Expected by me, of course. I see no real distinction between "monitoring" and "censorship," truth be told. The reason: the "monitor" is guaranteed to be a flawed human being applying his personal, flawed standards to decide what should and should not be seen by the group. Thus he will inevitably become censorious for the same reason that, with the best of intentions, public officials who oversee "pornographic" or "violent" film content always cross the line and engage in the suppression of unapproved ideas. The only real freedom of speech is, well, freedom of speech--which, on the internet, means the ability to post anything you please, any way you please, without submitting to the purview of anyone but the final group for which the post was intended. And the way to deal with the idiotic drool that some choose to spew forth, when given such freedom, is straightforward: each individual should get himself a good killfile program, and he should use it. But, of course, if everybody did that, then there would be no reason for anyone to hide in a monitored group such as this one. We could all be out in the open, where our discussions would serve to instruct those in the general public who are capable of being instructed, rather than hiding our light under a basket, as we are doing now. --Mitchell Jones}*** This forum has never been censored. There >is nothing in the charter or the rules about censorship. Why do you think Bill >Beaty has the time or the inclination to violate the rules he himself set? ***{Bill Beaty is a flawed human being like the rest of us, and the only standards he has to apply are his own flawed, personal standards. Since he has the power to cross the line, and power corrupts, my expectation is that he will cross the line. If this attitude makes me seem cynical, so be it. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > If that is not what is going on, then what is the correct explanation? > >It is a technical glitch. It happens all the time with Internet forums and >e-mail. ***{In four years of posting on usenet, comprising thousands of messages, I have never had a single post simply dissappear without a trace, until last week. Since the content of that post was somewhat inflammatory, and since Bill Beaty had indicated that he had resumed monitoring the group, I concluded that he had simply deep sixed it without comment. If that is not what happened, I invite Bill to publicly say so. --Mitchell Jones}*** I recommend you save a copy of your message until you see it come back >from Vortex. ***{I have a copy of the message, and will happily repost it if Bill didn't deep-six it the first time. What about it, Bill? --Mitchell Jones}*** > >- Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 18:28:11 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA29723; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:24:19 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:24:19 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:25:31 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Change the vortex-L rules? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Ikur31.0.KG7.2PR0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22410 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Right now the only rule against fighting on Vortex-L is this: 2. This is not the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup; ridicule, debunkery, and namecalling between believers and skeptics are forbidden. The tone should be one of legitimate disagreement and respectful debate. Vortex-L is a big nasty nest of 'true believers' (hopefully having some tendency to avoid self-deception,) and skeptics may as well leave in disgust. But if your mind is open, hop on board! Help us test "crazy" claims rather than ridiculing them or explaining them away. (For a good analysis of the negative aspects of skepticism, see ZEN AND THE ART OF DEBUNKERY by D. Drasin, on WEIRD SCIENCE page.) Unfortunately it says nothing about nasty infighting between members of the pro-CF community. ;) Below are examples of the rules in place on FREENRG-L and TAOSHUM-L. Should I make one of them the Rule No. 1 for vortex-L as well? If so, I still won't do such a great job in policing violators. However, the psychological effects of the rules are significant, and the whole subscribership will quickly take note those who flagrantly violate "community standards". ((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (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 TAOSHUM-L RULES 1. Intelligent, respectful discussion only. Meaning, no flamewars, no namecalling, no insults. Do not use taoshum-L to reply to insults, use private email. The list moderator is intolerant of violators, and they will be immediately unsubscribed. Please stay very aware that the low information content in email can lead us to read between the lines and hear insults where none were intended. So, think twice (or more!) before replying to apparent attack. If in doubt, ask the author to clarify, or simply take the fight to private email. FREENRG-L RULES ( WARNING! PLEASE READ! ) 1. NO FLAMEWARS: use private email for impolite messages. If your message is the least bit angry, hostile, or apt to be insulting, do not send it to freenrg-L. Instead, use private email to send it directly to your target. VIOLATORS RISK IMMEDIATE UNSUBSCRIPTION. If someone insults you, contact the moderator. See "Flamewars" below for details. ******************************************************************** FLAMEWARS Email psychology has an interesting effect: it breeds long outbursts of angry messages between two or more parties. To prevent these "flamewars", I must prohibit all impolite messages. This has some consequences. For example, if someone attacks you or insults you, you must abandon any hope of defending yourself in front of the group. Instead, defend yourself via private messages. Or, if someone blatantly violates the forum rules, you may NOT use the list to angrily point out their transgressions. Complaint to the violator directly, or contact the moderator instead. "Politeness" and "insult" of course are in the eye of the beholder. I ask that people try not to take insult. But more importantly, I DEMAND that all users craft their messages so that the RECIPIENT cannot take insult. Any complaints should be totally polite, emotionless, and non-accusatory, with no 'namecalling' whatsoever. Often this is impossible to do. The solution is very, VERY simple: SEND YOUR MESSAGE DIRECTLY TO THE RECIPIENT, NOT TO FREENRG-L. When a flamewar breaks out, people usually blame a particular person for causing it, and they feel justified in responding. However, sending your angry response to freenrg-L is PROHIBITED. If you catch yourself thinking "well, he/she started, I was just defending myself," then, since you so easily find justification to violate rule #1 of this forum, you should not be here. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 18:43:18 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA07308; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:41:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:41:13 -0700 Message-Id: <199809180135.VAA12360 mercury.mv.net> Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC IRONY - US Political Quote of the Century Date: Thu, 17 Sep 98 21:40:27 -0000 x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: "E.F. Mallove" To: "VORTEX" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Resent-Message-ID: <"bVYkd2.0.5o1.ueR0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22411 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >What I want to know is.....if he's indicted on eleven counts, does it >automatically become twelve if the cigar turns out to have been Cuban?? > >- Soo It might be 12, but would that then be "Trading with the Enemy" or "Sleeping with the Enemy" ? Heard in these parts..."Did y'know that the President has given up Sax for that Hormonica?" Gene From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 18:49:14 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA10559; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:47:01 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:47:01 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:48:15 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: more about listservers Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"M2BYZ3.0.oa2.JkR0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22412 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Below is the list info textfile from SCIENCE HOBBYIST. Search downwards for bit more about flamewar psychology, also "How many internet mail list subscribers does it take to change a light bulb" down near the end. ((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (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 ABOUT EMAIL "LISTS" 1997 William J. Beaty An email "list" or "listserv" is an online discussion group which uses email for communication. It's like having a bunch of email penpals, all of whom send email to the whole little group. It's like a usenet newsgroup that's delivered right to your email box. It's like participating in the meeting of a small club, where the conversations take place in slow motion, and where the meeting is still going on whenever you arrive. How "Lists" work When you are subscribed to a list server, you will constantly receive email messages sent by the other subscribers. The message are just like any other email. You yourself can participate in the "conversation" by sending your own email to a special address (the List Address.) Your message will automatically be sent to all the other subscribers. Some lists allow you to simply "reply" to any received message, and your reply will go to all other subscribers. (Mine work this way.) Subscribing and Unsubscribing Different lists handle the subscription process in different ways. For some lists you must ask the owner to add your address to the subscribership. For others, the process is automated, and you must send a "command" message to a special email address (the List Server address.) For example, my lists are automated, and to subscribe yourself, you must send a blank email message to somelistname-request eskimo.com, and place the word "subscribe" in the subject line of the email message. The Instructions When you subscribe to a list you will usually receive an automatic "welcome" message. Print and save this message, since it usually contains "Unsubscribe" instructions, rules, email addresses of the list maintenence person, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), location of the message archives and list's website, etc. Don't lose the unsubscribe instructions, or you won't be able to turn off the flow of messages! Topics of "Lists" Particular lists have particular topics. There are many thousands of lists on the internet. See http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/scilists.html for a list of science-oriented email lists, and for links to PAML, TILE, and other webpage libraries of "lists" having other topics. Subscription charges Email lists are traditionally free of charges. The term "subscribe" means "sign up," rather than to pay for a subscription. A few rare lists do require payment, but this is heavily publicized in their welcoming messages and/or webpages. Unless stated otherwise, list subscriptions are free. Sending messages Note that the subscribe/unsubscribe commands always go to a different email address than do the messages to the readership; read the "welcome" message to find these email addresses. To send a message to all the subscribers, you send your message to the main list address. The main email address of a list is usually of the form: topic-l somewhere.com, or topic-list somewhere.com. Don't mistake the lower-case "L" in "topic-l" for the number "1", or your messages will go to a nonexistent location. An easier way to send mail to the subscribers is to reply to one of the messages you've received. I often simply select "reply", then delete the subject line and the message before writing my own message. List Owner An email list will have a list-owner or "moderator", a person who runs the software, keeps conversations on topic, answers private questions, ejects troublemakers, etc. You can ask this person for help, but as a list moderator myself I personally must say FIRST ALWAYS READ THE "WELCOME" MESSAGE OR LIST "FAQ", SINCE YOUR QUESTION MIGHT ALREADY HAVE BEEN ANSWERED THERE! Moderated lists All lists have an owner, but some lists are "Moderated", meaning that not all messages are welcome, and all of the subscriber's messages to the list are first sent to the moderator to be inspected and passed along. "Moderated" lists are intentionally censored, in the same way that the editor of a magazine "censors" certain articles by rejecting them and returning them to the author. Some lists are "announce only", meaning that they are used only for distribution of announcements by the list owner, and any messages sent by the subscribers will go only to the owner and never to the other subscribers. Lurking It is *usually* acceptable to listen in on a list without ever sending messages at all. This is called "lurking". Most lists have a majority of lurkers and just a few people "talking." This is normal, since if everyone talked all the time, the volume of messages would be enormous. If a list has 100 subscribers and each one sends only one message per month, then there will always be several conversations going on. But if everyone lurks always, there will be no conversations at all. Subscribers should always be on the lookout for opportunities to jump in and converse a bit, or to make an observation, or to send a question to start a new subject thread. A rare few lists frown on lurking, so always check the "welcome" message for the policy of a particular list. Introductions When first subscribing to a new list, it's always wise (and polite) to read the messages for awhile first before jumping into the conversation. Even better, locate the list "archives" if they exist, and read the past weeks' messages. Some lists have very low traffic, so it sometimes is a good idea to introduce yourself when you first join the list, since this can start conversations. (Some lists *require* that new subscribers introduce themselves. Check the welcome message for the list's policy.) Messages per day Most lists are pretty safe regarding traffic volume, but some rare lists have hundreds of messages per day, so always be prepared to Unsubscribe quickly if you get overwhelmed, (and don't ever lose your Welcoming message with the "Unsubscribe" instructions!) Some lists offer a "digest mode", which causes the messages to be distributed in single emails which each contain many messages. "Digest mode" keeps your inbox from being filled with scattered list messages. But it prevents you from timely participation in conversations, since normal messages are distributed within hours, while digests might arrive every few days. Topic Threads There are usually several independent "conversations" going on at any one time on a list. These are called "threads", and can be sorted out by inspecting the subject line of the messages. If the subject is the same for several, those messages are a single "thread." Some email programs will let you sort separate message threads into separate mailboxes, so you can read continuing conversations in correct time-order without interruptions. "Flamewars" and Psychology "Insult wars" frequently break out on internet discussion groups. A few people enjoy these and will start them intentionally. But many more Flamewars exist than can easily be explained by intentional troublemakers. It seems that the psychology of email itself can start flamewars. Email messages are "low bandwidth", meaning that the writing usually lacks critical information about how to interpret the messages, and it lacks most of the emotional communication of face-to-face conversation. As a result, messages usually can be interpreted in several different ways. A person can send an innocent message which is "heard" as scarcasm or vile insults by the person who receives it. (The reverse can also happen, intentional insults can be "heard" as benign, but missed insults usually cause no problems!) Flamewars usually are triggered *not* when one person insults another, but when one person *takes* insult when reading a message having innocent intent. The offended reader then hurls a real insult in return. The first party feels unjustly attacked, since after all they did not send any original insults, and so they respond with insults of their own. And so a "war" has been triggered through misunderstandings. Same as with nations. Same as with little kids, and just like with parents and kids, the participants will often end up saying "well she started it, no he did, no she did", and the moderator steps in and says "I don't care who started it, you both participated, both of you go stand in the corner." The solution? Simple. Be nice. Don't hurl insults via the list, even if someone else insulted you first. Either ask if the insult was intentional, or if you must, send your responding attack directly to your target and *not* to the email list. If you feel that someone has unjustly attacked you, and you feel justified in defending yourself in public with attacks of your own, then you have fallen for the Flamewar psychology, and you are no better than nations who go to war for no reason. On the other hand, if all real (or imaginary) insults go right past you with no effect, then you would make a good email list moderator! JOKE: Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 09:20:56 GMT From: Nite Owl <***les.beecher xtra.co.nz***> Subject: HUMOUR: How many internet mail.............. Q: How many internet mail list subscribers does it take to change a light bulb? A: 1,331: 1 to change the light bulb and to post to the mail list that the light bulb has been changed 14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently. 7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs. 27 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs. 53 to flame the spell checkers 156 to write to the list administrator complaining about the light bulb discussion and its inappropriateness to this mail list. 41 to correct spelling in the spelling/grammar flames. 109 to post that this list is not about light bulbs and to please take this email exchange to alt.lite.bulb 203 to demand that cross posting to alt.grammar, alt.spelling and alt.punctuation about changing light bulbs be stopped. 111 to defend the posting to this list saying that we are all using light bulbs and therefore the posts **are** relevant to this mail list. 306 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique, and what brands are faulty. 27 to post URLs where one can see examples of different light bulbs 14 to post that the URLs were posted incorrectly, and to post corrected URLs. 3 to post about links they found from the URLs that are relevant to this list which makes light bulbs relevant to this list. 33 to concatenate all posts to date, then quote them including all headers and footers, and then add "Me Too." 12 to post to the list that they are unsubscribing because they cannot handle the light bulb controversey. 19 to quote the "Me Too's" to say, "Me Three." 4 to suggest that posters request the light bulb FAQ. 1 to propose new alt.change.lite.bulb newsgroup. 47 to say this is just what alt.physic.cold_fusion was meant for, leave it here. 143 votes for alt.lite.bulb. ------------------------------ Enjoy NITE OWL From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 19:22:39 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA27194; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 19:20:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 19:20:15 -0700 Message-ID: <3601EF29.233 bellsouth.net> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 22:27:05 -0700 From: Terry Blanton X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-BLS20 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC IRONY - US Political Quote of the Century References: <199809171829_MC2-59D4-9032 compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"rVzBZ2.0.ie6.UDS0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22413 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Soo wrote: > > John > > < What irony if the quote can be verified as legitimate.> > > This one has been widely quoted in the UK press since the start of > Zippergate. But it would be fun to hear a fresh-faced Dirty Bill actually > saying it on the record. Indeed! I first saw the quote on the Drudge Report, the web site which broke the "stained dress" story. Today's report was even more ironic at: http://www.drudgereport.com/7043.htm Where Clinton delcares by presidential proclamation on October 17, 1997, "National Character Counts Week": Presidential Proclamation #7043: By the President of the United States: The roots of America's greatness are embedded in the character of its citizens. From our Founder's passion for justice and equality to the social consciousness and humanitarian spirit of today's citizens, the character of our people has inspired the world. Undeniably, character does count for our citizens, our communities, and our Nation, and this week we celebrate the importance of character in our individual lives and in the life of our country... Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 20:08:38 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA20364; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 20:07:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 20:07:33 -0700 Message-ID: <005801bde2b0$a4e16bc0$b28f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC IRONY - US Political Quote of the Century Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 21:01:29 -0600 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: <"Pw4BE2.0.1-4.qvS0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22414 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Terry Blanton To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Thursday, September 17, 1998 8:22 PM Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC IRONY - US Political Quote of the Century "Do as I Say, Not as I Do." :-) Frederick Terry wrote: >Soo wrote: >> >> John >> >> < What irony if the quote can be verified as legitimate.> >> >> This one has been widely quoted in the UK press since the start of >> Zippergate. But it would be fun to hear a fresh-faced Dirty Bill actually >> saying it on the record. > >Indeed! I first saw the quote on the Drudge Report, the web site which >broke the "stained dress" story. > >Today's report was even more ironic at: > >http://www.drudgereport.com/7043.htm > >Where Clinton delcares by presidential proclamation on October 17, 1997, >"National Character Counts Week": > >Presidential Proclamation #7043: > >By the President of the United States: > >The roots of America's greatness are embedded in the character of its >citizens. From our >Founder's passion for justice and equality to the social consciousness >and humanitarian spirit >of today's citizens, the character of our people has inspired the world. >Undeniably, character >does count for our citizens, our communities, and our Nation, and this >week we celebrate the >importance of character in our individual lives and in the life of our >country... > > > >Terry > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 20:57:11 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA07399; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 20:55:50 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 20:55:50 -0700 Message-ID: <3601DA60.398E ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 23:58:24 -0400 From: "Dana K. Loan" Reply-To: loan ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: more about listservers References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"qMiar.0.Wp1.4dT0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22415 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: BRAVO....Opps, back to the shadows 8^) Dana William Beaty wrote: > > Below is the list info textfile from SCIENCE HOBBYIST. Search downwards > for bit more about flamewar psychology, also "How many internet mail list > subscribers does it take to change a light bulb" down near the end. > > ((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (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 > > ABOUT EMAIL "LISTS" 1997 William J. Beaty > > An email "list" or "listserv" is an online discussion group which uses > email for communication. It's like having a bunch of email penpals, all > of whom send email to the whole little group. It's like a usenet > newsgroup that's delivered right to your email box. It's like > participating in the meeting of a small club, where the conversations take > place in slow motion, and where the meeting is still going on whenever you > arrive. > > How "Lists" work > > When you are subscribed to a list server, you will constantly receive > email messages sent by the other subscribers. The message are just like > any other email. You yourself can participate in the "conversation" by > sending your own email to a special address (the List Address.) Your > message will automatically be sent to all the other subscribers. Some > lists allow you to simply "reply" to any received message, and your reply > will go to all other subscribers. (Mine work this way.) > > Subscribing and Unsubscribing > > Different lists handle the subscription process in different ways. For > some lists you must ask the owner to add your address to the > subscribership. For others, the process is automated, and you must send a > "command" message to a special email address (the List Server address.) > For example, my lists are automated, and to subscribe yourself, you must > send a blank email message to somelistname-request eskimo.com, and place > the word "subscribe" in the subject line of the email message. > > The Instructions > > When you subscribe to a list you will usually receive an automatic > "welcome" message. Print and save this message, since it usually contains > "Unsubscribe" instructions, rules, email addresses of the list > maintenence person, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), location of the > message archives and list's website, etc. Don't lose the unsubscribe > instructions, or you won't be able to turn off the flow of messages! > > Topics of "Lists" > > Particular lists have particular topics. There are many thousands of > lists on the internet. See http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/scilists.html for > a list of science-oriented email lists, and for links to PAML, TILE, and > other webpage libraries of "lists" having other topics. > > Subscription charges > > Email lists are traditionally free of charges. The term "subscribe" means > "sign up," rather than to pay for a subscription. A few rare lists do > require payment, but this is heavily publicized in their welcoming > messages and/or webpages. Unless stated otherwise, list subscriptions are > free. > > Sending messages > > Note that the subscribe/unsubscribe commands always go to a different > email address than do the messages to the readership; read the "welcome" > message to find these email addresses. To send a message to all the > subscribers, you send your message to the main list address. The main > email address of a list is usually of the form: topic-l somewhere.com, or > topic-list somewhere.com. Don't mistake the lower-case "L" in "topic-l" > for the number "1", or your messages will go to a nonexistent location. > An easier way to send mail to the subscribers is to reply to one of > the messages you've received. I often simply select "reply", then delete > the subject line and the message before writing my own message. > > List Owner > > An email list will have a list-owner or "moderator", a person who runs the > software, keeps conversations on topic, answers private questions, ejects > troublemakers, etc. You can ask this person for help, but as a list > moderator myself I personally must say FIRST ALWAYS READ THE "WELCOME" > MESSAGE OR LIST "FAQ", SINCE YOUR QUESTION MIGHT ALREADY HAVE BEEN > ANSWERED THERE! > > Moderated lists > > All lists have an owner, but some lists are "Moderated", meaning that not > all messages are welcome, and all of the subscriber's messages to the list > are first sent to the moderator to be inspected and passed along. > "Moderated" lists are intentionally censored, in the same way that the > editor of a magazine "censors" certain articles by rejecting them and > returning them to the author. > > Some lists are "announce only", meaning that they are used only for > distribution of announcements by the list owner, and any messages sent by > the subscribers will go only to the owner and never to the other > subscribers. > > Lurking > > It is *usually* acceptable to listen in on a list without ever sending > messages at all. This is called "lurking". Most lists have a majority of > lurkers and just a few people "talking." This is normal, since if > everyone talked all the time, the volume of messages would be enormous. If > a list has 100 subscribers and each one sends only one message per month, > then there will always be several conversations going on. But if everyone > lurks always, there will be no conversations at all. Subscribers should > always be on the lookout for opportunities to jump in and converse a bit, > or to make an observation, or to send a question to start a new subject > thread. A rare few lists frown on lurking, so always check the "welcome" > message for the policy of a particular list. > > Introductions > > When first subscribing to a new list, it's always wise (and polite) to > read the messages for awhile first before jumping into the conversation. > Even better, locate the list "archives" if they exist, and read the past > weeks' messages. Some lists have very low traffic, so it sometimes is a > good idea to introduce yourself when you first join the list, since this > can start conversations. (Some lists *require* that new subscribers > introduce themselves. Check the welcome message for the list's policy.) > > Messages per day > > Most lists are pretty safe regarding traffic volume, but some rare lists > have hundreds of messages per day, so always be prepared to Unsubscribe > quickly if you get overwhelmed, (and don't ever lose your Welcoming > message with the "Unsubscribe" instructions!) Some lists offer a "digest > mode", which causes the messages to be distributed in single emails which > each contain many messages. "Digest mode" keeps your inbox from being > filled with scattered list messages. But it prevents you from timely > participation in conversations, since normal messages are distributed > within hours, while digests might arrive every few days. > > Topic Threads > > There are usually several independent "conversations" going on at any one > time on a list. These are called "threads", and can be sorted out by > inspecting the subject line of the messages. If the subject is the same > for several, those messages are a single "thread." Some email programs > will let you sort separate message threads into separate mailboxes, so you > can read continuing conversations in correct time-order without > interruptions. > > "Flamewars" and Psychology > > "Insult wars" frequently break out on internet discussion groups. A few > people enjoy these and will start them intentionally. But many more > Flamewars exist than can easily be explained by intentional troublemakers. > > It seems that the psychology of email itself can start flamewars. Email > messages are "low bandwidth", meaning that the writing usually lacks > critical information about how to interpret the messages, and it lacks > most of the emotional communication of face-to-face conversation. As a > result, messages usually can be interpreted in several different ways. A > person can send an innocent message which is "heard" as scarcasm or vile > insults by the person who receives it. (The reverse can also happen, > intentional insults can be "heard" as benign, but missed insults usually > cause no problems!) > > Flamewars usually are triggered *not* when one person insults another, but > when one person *takes* insult when reading a message having innocent > intent. The offended reader then hurls a real insult in return. The > first party feels unjustly attacked, since after all they did not send any > original insults, and so they respond with insults of their own. And so a > "war" has been triggered through misunderstandings. Same as with nations. > Same as with little kids, and just like with parents and kids, the > participants will often end up saying "well she started it, no he did, no > she did", and the moderator steps in and says "I don't care who started > it, you both participated, both of you go stand in the corner." The > solution? Simple. Be nice. Don't hurl insults via the list, even if > someone else insulted you first. Either ask if the insult was > intentional, or if you must, send your responding attack directly to your > target and *not* to the email list. If you feel that someone has unjustly > attacked you, and you feel justified in defending yourself in public with > attacks of your own, then you have fallen for the Flamewar psychology, and > you are no better than nations who go to war for no reason. On the other > hand, if all real (or imaginary) insults go right past you with no effect, > then you would make a good email list moderator! > > JOKE: > > Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 09:20:56 GMT > From: Nite Owl <***les.beecher xtra.co.nz***> > Subject: HUMOUR: How many internet mail.............. > > Q: How many internet mail list subscribers does it take to change a > light bulb? > > A: 1,331: > > 1 to change the light bulb and to post to the mail list that the light > bulb has been changed > > 14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the > light bulb could have been changed differently. > > 7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs. > > 27 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light > bulbs. > > 53 to flame the spell checkers > > 156 to write to the list administrator complaining about the light > bulb discussion and its inappropriateness to this mail list. > > 41 to correct spelling in the spelling/grammar flames. > > 109 to post that this list is not about light bulbs and to please take > this email exchange to alt.lite.bulb > > 203 to demand that cross posting to alt.grammar, alt.spelling and > alt.punctuation about changing light bulbs be stopped. > > 111 to defend the posting to this list saying that we are all using > light bulbs and therefore the posts **are** relevant to this mail > list. > > 306 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where > to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for > this technique, and what brands are faulty. > > 27 to post URLs where one can see examples of different light bulbs > > 14 to post that the URLs were posted incorrectly, and to post > corrected URLs. > > 3 to post about links they found from the URLs that are relevant to > this list which makes light bulbs relevant to this list. > > 33 to concatenate all posts to date, then quote them including all > headers and footers, and then add "Me Too." > > 12 to post to the list that they are unsubscribing because they cannot > handle the light bulb controversey. > > 19 to quote the "Me Too's" to say, "Me Three." > > 4 to suggest that posters request the light bulb FAQ. > > 1 to propose new alt.change.lite.bulb newsgroup. > > 47 to say this is just what alt.physic.cold_fusion was meant for, > leave it here. > > 143 votes for alt.lite.bulb. > > ------------------------------ > Enjoy > > NITE OWL From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 21:22:36 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA17743; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 21:18:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 21:18:17 -0700 Message-ID: <3601D244.31F9 earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 22:23:48 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Hansen: Storms: more comments 9.17.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"t_cV82.0.2L4.8yT0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22416 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Subject: Storms: Hansen: comments 9.17.98 -Reply Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 17:50:14 -0600 From: "Lee HANSEN" To: rmforall earthlink.net [Comments from Lee Hansen] Subject: Re: Hansen debate Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:02:19 -0600 From: Edmund Storms To: rmforall earthlink.net 9/17/98 Dear Rich Murray, Dr. Hansen raises some issues about which we completely agree. =20 1. Results known to be wrong for a known reason should not be considered. [Miles calorimetry falls in this category.] Of course, we may differ as to whether the reasons actually justify the rejection. 2. Yes, we need to determine whether the heat is chemical, nuclear or just plain error. Of course, judgement plays a role in such a decision. If in a person=92s judgement, a nuclear reaction is impossible based on previous experience, then we are left with the other two possibilities. We need to agree about how to make a rational choice between these possibilities without being influenced by this bias. 3. Yes, random error is only part of the total error. The problem is to evaluate the nonrandom part of the error. Granted, electrolysis is a less than ideal method to calibrate a calorimeter. I have made an extensive study of the problems associated with this method and can now eliminate many of the problems. Mike McKubre has also done such a study using his calorimeters. This background allows us to override many of the past reasons to reject this method. Even so, there will be a lower limit to the ability to detect heat which is much higher than the state-of-the-art using other techniques. The question is, =93is the sensitivity and stability sufficient for our particular purpose?=94 My answer is yes! [That has never been the issue. The question is: Is the possible error larger than the claimed effect? If the answer is yes, then the result must be rejected as evidence of anything.] If Dr. Hansen wants come to his own answer, he must become more familiar with our studies without the bias of needing to find errors so that cold fusion can be rejected. Simply assuming excess heat is caused by calibration error without any evidence is not a rational approach. [How else can I find errors if I don't look for them? By the same reasoning, accepting claims of excess heat without looking for potential error is going to mislead you.] 4. A Seebeck calorimeter (aka Kelvin Calorimeter) is designed so that heat loss is transported through tightly packed transducers, which convert the heat flow to a voltage. Thermocouples are frequently used as the transducers. The method is very sensitive and stable, is immune to conditions within the calorimeter such as gradients, [That depends on the design of the experiment and the instrument.] and gives absolute values without calibration [At some point it still must be tied back to a chemical or electrical calibration.] once the characteristics of the transducers are known - much in the same manner that thermocouples give reliable temperatures when conversion tables are used. The study has been described at several meetings, and the results can be studied in the ICCF-7 Proceedings. Unfortunately, the work has not been published in a reviewed journal for reasons unique to the field. [It would be interesting to know those reasons.] This work combined with the independent study by Miles-Bush [Which should be ignored, because we have shown it contains serious errors.] shows a good correlation, not =93just a number of positives and negatives=94 and is consistent with the reaction D+D=3D4He without gamma emission. You can find an evaluation in 21st Century Sci. and Technol, summer 1998, page 15 or in my review which will be in the next issue of Infinite Energy. [Both of which I must assume to be highly biased toward finding positive evidence for cold fusion (just as you assume a negative bias on my part), and thus to probably not contain the potential negative information.] 5. Yes, =93a good piece of data is worth a lot more than a whole pile of horse manure=94. Of course, but horse manure is a lot easier to spot. Regards, Ed Storms From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 21:32:03 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA22061; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 21:29:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 21:29:03 -0700 Message-ID: <3601D4C4.628F earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 22:34:28 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Storms: Hansen: calorimetry comments 9.17.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"I_-cr.0.ZO5.E6U0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22417 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Subject: Re:Hansen debate Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 21:16:10 -0600 From: Edmund Storms To: rmforall earthlink.net References: 1 9/17/98 Dear Rich et al., I have to agree with Jed in one respect. This discussion is at the level of CANR 101, and the students have not read the assigned texts. Only in this field are we forced to cope at this level. If I came into any other field of science and started raising such challenges without mastering the fundamental work, I would be laughed out of class. On the other hand, a large body of scientists share the opinions Dr. Hansen and Dr. Blue express so clearly. If we are to make any progress in my lifetime, these attitudes need to be changed by rational and factual discussion. Granted, this will not work in all cases, but sometimes I’m surprised to discover that facts clearly understood do change some people’s minds. Very occasionally, the need to answer such questions leads to a new approach to the problem from which we can all benefit. I hope for the best. Having said this, I would like to answer the points raised by Dr. Hansen in his 17 Sept 1998 14:18 reply. Dr Hansen chooses to explain cross-talk as being caused by different lots of Pd catalyzing different chemical reactions, hence producing different amounts of heat. (At this point I suppose he is willing to agree that the calorimeter is actually detecting something called excess energy rather than error) I would like to make two points. First, I understood cross-talk as being caused by electrical interference within the temperature measuring circuit, thereby causing a shift in the calibration constant. Second, if we adopt Dr. Hansen’s definition, I must ask what heat producing chemical reactions does he have in mind. For a catalyst to work, chemicals in the vicinity of a catalyst must have more Gibbs energy than a possible product. The catalyst only allows the lower energy state to be achieved in a reasonable time. In other words, a catalyst can only speed up a reaction that is already energetically possible. A P-F cell contains D2O, LiOD, Pd and Pt. All of these chemical species are in their lowest energy state with respect to each other. For any chemical reaction to occur, energy must be added to the cell in the form of electric current. This process does not produce excess chemical energy. i.e. energy in excess of that being added by the applied current. What chemical reactions does Dr. Hansen propose to be the source of the claimed excess? An isoperibolic calorimeter (the use of isoparibolic is a spelling error) uses the temperature difference across a thermal barrier to determine the power being produced within the calorimeter. If you prefer, we can call it a heat-flow method, a heat conduction method, a delta T method or, as you use later in the discussion, isoperibol. In any case, the method is much different from a flow-type. The power in my calorimeter was determined by measuring the average temperature within the cell and the average temperature in the surrounding jacket through which constant-temperature water flowed. Granted that a thermistor located at the cathode can only show heat being produced at the cathode. Nevertheless, it is interesting that more heat was produced when excess power was detected than when it was not. This means to me that the excess was originating at the cathode rather than elsewhere within the cell. Dr. Hansen again raises the possibility of there being a change in chemical reaction which is interpreted as excess power. As noted above, a chemical reaction requires the presences of materials that can react. Please give me examples of any chemical reaction you can justify using known values for the Gibbs energy that would account for the observed behavior. Of course a thermistor does not produce a voltage in the same sense as does a thermocouple. However, a voltage is produced from the bridge circuit which is measured. And yes, the voltage is a function of temperature otherwise it would be useless as a means to measure temperature. Have you never used a thermistor? The idea that AC could leak from the electrolysis circuit into the thermistor is impossible unless the frequency were in the high kHz region. A simple calculation of impedances would reveal that 60 Hz can not transfer through the very high resistance, low capacitance of the glass covering into an impedance of a few thousand ohms. Nevermind, that the power supply has a 60 Hz output which is almost undetectable. Even if this transfer should occur, heating of a thermistor in good thermal contact with the electrolyte would require a significant and unreasonable amount of transferred power for the effect to be important. In addition, the proposed transfer would have to suddenly start after many hours of electrolysis and then be sensitive to the chemical composition of the cathode. How would you account for these observations? I agree, bubble patterns do have an effect when isoperibol calorimeters are used. However, these can be minimized by stirring. In contrast, flow-type-calorimeters do not suffer from this problem because all of the energy is captured in the water regardless of where it originates within the cell. Using an external thermal barrier across which delta T is measured, as did Miles, also greatly reduces this problem. Yes, there are many ways to screw up doing calorimetry. In spite of this problem, modern technology has based a large part of a successful chemical industry on values generated from such devices. How many times does a chemist reject values listed in the thermodynamic tables because of bad calorimetry? In addition, we are not basing our assertions on measuring a few milliwatts. Some cells have made watts of power and megajoules of energy. Most people I know who have experience in conventional calorimetry agree that it is hard to screw up at that level. Yet, you require more. You require a clear relationship between heat and a nuclear product but you reject Miles-Bush. In addition, I presume you reject all tritium claims - otherwise you would have a problem. As for having you reproduce the effect, Steve Jones and I asked the DOE several years ago to give money for just such a study. We were turned down. At the present time, a supply of potentially active palladium is not available. My experience has demonstrated to me that thin, electroplated films have a good chance of working. If my studies succeed in producing some good material, I would be happy to give you some. However, you would have to follow my procedure for loading the material and take into account the various ways such material can be made inactive. A level of experience exists in this field which must be acknowledged, respected, and applied before you will see the effect. Dr. Hansen made some comments about the Miles-Bush work which needs clarification. He says that designs similar to Miles were subject to up to 40% systematic error even with reasonably stirring. I have not seen studies done by you which used a calorimeter similar to that of Miles. I’m under the impression that your calorimeter was a simple isoperibol type using the cell wall as the thermal barrier. Miles used a thermal barrier external to the cell and a method to integrate the flowing energy before temperature was measured. This method almost eliminates errors caused by bubble mixing. Is this correct? If not, why not? Please explain exactly what you did to duplicate the Miles conditions. Why do you doubt that measurements of D2O usage by Miles were not sufficiently accurate to demonstrate lack of recombination? It has been the style of critics of cold fusion claims to require believers prove the reality of their claims, while skeptics were free to propose any imaginable source of error or counter explanation. For many years this approach was useful. I think we can now make more progress if the various skeptics justify their suggested counter explanations with some evidence. For example, simply suggesting the presence of a catalytic reaction without any background evidence or awareness of how a catalyst works serves no purpose. I expect someone who wants me to spend my time debating this issue to invest some time understanding basic chemistry and to make some calculations to support the suggestions. I want to gain some insights from this effort as well, something that has not yet happened. Regards, Ed Storms From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 22:05:47 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA02663; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 22:00:50 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 22:00:50 -0700 Message-Id: <199809180501.AAA27445 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 00:00:43 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: Change the vortex-L rules? Resent-Message-ID: <"RG2JB2.0.Ff.1aU0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22418 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Right now the only rule against fighting on Vortex-L is this: > >2. This is not the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup; ridicule, debunkery, and > namecalling between believers and skeptics are forbidden. The tone > should be one of legitimate disagreement and respectful debate. > Vortex-L is a big nasty nest of 'true believers' (hopefully having > some tendency to avoid self-deception,) and skeptics may as well leave > in disgust. But if your mind is open, hop on board! Help us test > "crazy" claims rather than ridiculing them or explaining them away. > (For a good analysis of the negative aspects of skepticism, see ZEN AND > THE ART OF DEBUNKERY by D. Drasin, on WEIRD SCIENCE page.) ***{It is good to have standards, and to state them publicly, and to talk about what the standards ought to be. But when someone begins to enforce his interpretation of the standards, difficulties can easily arise. In my view, a moderator must avoid "prior restraint"--which means: he must pass all posts on to the group, and, if he finds that a particular post violates standards, he should begin by e-mailing the person who sent the post to discussing the nature of the violation with him. If the person has different standards, or a different interpretation of the same standards, such an exchange can be of mutual benefit. The moderator, after all, can be wrong himself, and should be open to that possibility in most cases. Where egregious violations occur, of course, a verbal warning would be insufficient. Loss of posting privileges for a month might, for example, be an appropriate penalty for calling someone an "asshole" in a post. In that case, the person would still be able to read the group, but would not be allowed to post. And, of course, repetition would bring longer periods of loss of privileges and, in extreme cases, forced banishment ("unsubscription") might be imposed, again for an explicit period of time. Like a judge in a real court, the moderator should strive to make the punishment fit the crime. Finally, I think that whenever such a penalty is imposed, it should be done openly, and explained to the group via a post. The reason: a public discussion of such matters would serve to improve decorum on the group both by deterrence and by improving understanding of what is reasonable and what is unreasonable behavior. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >Unfortunately it says nothing about nasty infighting between members of >the pro-CF community. ;) > >Below are examples of the rules in place on FREENRG-L and TAOSHUM-L. >Should I make one of them the Rule No. 1 for vortex-L as well? If so, I >still won't do such a great job in policing violators. However, the >psychological effects of the rules are significant, and the whole >subscribership will quickly take note those who flagrantly violate >"community standards". > >((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (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 > > >TAOSHUM-L RULES > 1. Intelligent, respectful discussion only. Meaning, no flamewars, > no namecalling, no insults. Do not use taoshum-L to reply > to insults, use private email. The list moderator is intolerant > of violators, and they will be immediately unsubscribed. ***{This is too severe. As noted above: (a) the punishment should fit the crime, and (b) the moderator is a fallable human being who can be wrong. Thus he should seek feedback from the group when invoking penalites, rather than acting in an autocratic manner. That is not to say that he should put his decisions to a vote, of course. The point is that if the moderator feels obligated to post the reasons for his decisions for review and criticism from the group, he will be disinclined to act in the manner of the Red Queen, who shouted "Off with his head!" in response to every transgression. --Mitchell Jones}*** Please > stay very aware that the low information content in email can > lead us to read between the lines and hear insults where none > were intended. So, think twice (or more!) before replying to > apparent attack. If in doubt, ask the author to clarify, or > simply take the fight to private email. > > > > >FREENRG-L RULES ( WARNING! PLEASE READ! ) > > 1. NO FLAMEWARS: use private email for impolite messages. If your > message is the least bit angry, hostile, or apt to be insulting, do > not send it to freenrg-L. Instead, use private email to send it > directly to your target. VIOLATORS RISK IMMEDIATE UNSUBSCRIPTION. ***{Again, this is too severe. The threat posed by a "moderator" who behaves like a little tinpot dictator is far greater than the threat posed by an occasional impolite post. --Mitchell Jones}*** > If someone insults you, contact the moderator. See "Flamewars" below > for details. > > >******************************************************************** > > FLAMEWARS > > Email psychology has an interesting effect: it breeds long outbursts of > angry messages between two or more parties. To prevent these > "flamewars", I must prohibit all impolite messages. This has some > consequences. For example, if someone attacks you or insults you, you > must abandon any hope of defending yourself in front of the group. > Instead, defend yourself via private messages. Or, if someone blatantly > violates the forum rules, you may NOT use the list to angrily point out > their transgressions. Complaint to the violator directly, or contact > the moderator instead. > > "Politeness" and "insult" of course are in the eye of the beholder. I > ask that people try not to take insult. But more importantly, I DEMAND > that all users craft their messages so that the RECIPIENT cannot take > insult. ***{Impractical. Some people are simply unreasonable, and will take offense in response to criticism that is in fact perfectly civil. --Mitchell Jones}*** Any complaints should be totally polite, emotionless, and > non-accusatory, with no 'namecalling' whatsoever. Often this is > impossible to do. The solution is very, VERY simple: > > SEND YOUR MESSAGE DIRECTLY TO THE RECIPIENT, NOT TO FREENRG-L. > > When a flamewar breaks out, people usually blame a particular person for > causing it, and they feel justified in responding. However, sending > your angry response to freenrg-L is PROHIBITED. If you catch yourself > thinking "well, he/she started, I was just defending myself," then, > since you so easily find justification to violate rule #1 of this forum, > you should not be here. ***{Too simplistic. Too heavy handed. Moderating a group devoted to the discussion of heretical science requires a soft touch, and carefully measured responses. Otherwise, those who have the most to contribute--i.e., the flakes and the oddballs--will be driven elsewhere. --Mitchell Jones}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 22:59:46 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA19434; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 22:58:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 22:58:07 -0700 Message-ID: <3601F64B.11F7FB36 gte.net> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 22:57:34 -0700 From: Bob Horst X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Newman & Earth Tech References: <3.0.1.32.19980917090928.00da37e4 mail.eden.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"xE_hh.0.Yl4.kPV0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22419 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Scott Little wrote: > At 10:43 9/16/98 -0400, Ed Wall wrote: > > >Scott, couldn't you use a voltage divider to get the voltage into the range > >that the Clarke-Hess can handle and scale the power measurements > >accordingly? > > Yes, but it's not trivial to make a really accurate one. The high > frequency components of the signal "see" the capacitance of the resistors > and divide according to the overall impedance of each resistor, not just > it's DC resistance value. Still, that IS the way to handle such a situation. > > It seems to me that if we just need a factor of two, we could construct a > highly symmetrical divider using two identical resistors and it would be > pretty much guaranteed to divide things in half no matter what the frequency. > Scott -- If a factor of two is not enough, you could divide by a factor of N. Just use N resistors of the same value. If you cannot match the values well enough, you could take N measurements, one each across each of the resistors. (This assumes that input power stays constant for long enough to take the N independent measurements.) -- Bob From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 23:45:10 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA02038; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 23:44:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 23:44:10 -0700 Message-ID: <008301bde2ce$e634c400$b28f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: "Vortex-L" Subject: Bull? Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 00:37:16 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0012_01BDE29C.7C6F81E0" 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: <"BWeP12.0.lV.v4W0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22420 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_0012_01BDE29C.7C6F81E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 =20 Home=20 World=20 U.S.=20 Weather=20 Sports=20 Business=20 Sci-Tech=20 Showbiz=20 Lifestyle=20 alt=20 On Target=20 Search=20 =20 Help=20 Feedback=20 Switch User=20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 Sep. 18, 1998 >> 6:43 am GMT=20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 The story below was selected from CNN Custom News - a new = personalized service that delivers only the news that's important to = YOU. Sign up now to receive your personal news = stories, weather, sports scores, and stock quotes from over 100 = different sources - all for FREE. If you're already a user, please = login. =20 =20 Wisconsin Political Fight Over Cow Gas =20 =20 AP 17-SEP-98 =20 (Madison, Wisconsin)-- It's undoubtedly the only political = race in America where cow sounds are a factor.=20 Congressman Mark Neumann is a Republican running for the U-S = Senate. He claims Democratic incumbent Russ Feingold has supported a = taxpayer-funded study of cow gas.=20 Neumann backs up his point with a T-V ad that features = flatulent cows. On the ad, he says, "This smelled like government waste = to me."=20 A spokesman for Feingold says the senator has an excellent = record on deficit reduction, and that any claim he supports the cow-gas = study is "udderly" ridiculous.=20 Copyright 1998& The Associated Press. All rights reserved. = This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or = redistributed.=20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =A9 1998 Cable News Network, Inc. A Time Warner Company All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this information is = provided to you. Read our privacy guidelines. =20 Custom News is built on technology.=20 =20 =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BDE29C.7C6F81E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable CNN Custom News - U.S.
 
3D"CNN=20


Home 
World 
U.S. 
Weather 
Sports 
Business 
Sci-Tech 
Showbiz 
Lifestyle 
alt 
On Target 
Search 
3D"Customize
Help 
Feedback 
Switch = User 



3D"CNN
3D"CNN


3D"Barnes

3DTotalE!
Sep. 18, 1998 = >> 6:43=20 am GMT

3D"U.S.		 3D"Ad

The story below was selected from CNN Custom = News - a=20 new personalized service that delivers only the = news=20 that's important to YOU.

Sign up = now to=20 receive your personal news stories, weather, = sports=20 scores, and stock quotes from over 100 different = sources=20 - all for FREE. If you're already a user, please = login.

Wisconsin Political Fight Over Cow Gas

AP
17-SEP-98

(Madison, Wisconsin)-- It's undoubtedly the only = political race=20 in America where cow sounds are a factor.=20

Congressman Mark Neumann is a Republican running for the = U-S=20 Senate. He claims Democratic incumbent Russ Feingold has = supported a=20 taxpayer-funded study of cow gas.=20

Neumann backs up his point with a T-V ad that features = flatulent=20 cows. On the ad, he says, "This smelled like government = waste=20 to me."=20

A spokesman for Feingold says the senator has an = excellent record=20 on deficit reduction, and that any claim he supports the = cow-gas=20 study is "udderly" ridiculous.=20

Copyright 1998& The Associated = Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be = published,=20 broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.=20

3D""
3D"Ad
3D""

=20

©=20 1998 Cable News Network, Inc. A Time Warner Company
All = Rights=20 Reserved. Terms under which this information is = provided to=20 you.
Read our privacy guidelines.

Custom News is = built on=20 3DOracle=20 technology.=20


------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BDE29C.7C6F81E0-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 17 23:46:38 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA02312; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 23:45:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 23:45:17 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 01:55:19 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Clarke-Hess PLUS battery test Resent-Message-ID: <"uOpOR1.0.hZ.y5W0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22421 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >At 16:36 9/17/98 -0600, Evan Soule wrote: > >>"The motor drew 1.7 to 2 amps and no matter how hard we tried we could not >>slow the motor down at all and the CURRENT DRAW REMAINED STEADY throughout >>all of our attempts." > >It is apparent from the statement above that Appelbaum considers a reading >that stays between 1.7 and 2 amps to be "steady". That range is big enough >to include the current variations that would be expected from the >relatively small load presented by a gloved hand grabbing a smooth shaft. > > > >Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.eden.com/~little >Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA >512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email) Dear Scott, I check with Donny regarding your comment above and this was his reply: "When we first started the motor up it was running at 2 amp draw, but later when we started it up again it was noticed that the reading was only 1.7 amps. "When we were trying to choke it down, however, there was NO fluctuation of the meter. It was as though the shaft had NO additional load on it!" Donny Appelbaum _______________ Regards, Evan Soule' From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 00:11:50 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA09754; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 00:10:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 00:10:52 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 23:15:25 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Change the vortex-L rules? Resent-Message-ID: <"U7x0f2.0.FO2.yTW0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22422 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 6:25 PM 9/17/98, William Beaty wrote: [snip] > >Below are examples of the rules in place on FREENRG-L and TAOSHUM-L. >Should I make one of them the Rule No. 1 for vortex-L as well? Since vortexb-l is unrestricted why not just banish such unpleasant discussion to vortexb-l? If either party doesn't want to go there - it's an automatic end of discussion. Also, it would be a reasonable courtesy to at least give a warning before cutting someone off the list. We all make mistakes. This list has been a wonderful place for several years, so that is plenty of reason not to make changes now. I think one reason things have gone downhill is that the vortex meat and potatoes, discussion of energy related experiments, has been a bit lite of late. It will probably pick up again this winter. It is too bad the vacuum tends to get filled with nutrient free material. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 00:55:09 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA18162; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 00:52:36 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 00:52:36 -0700 From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Clarke-Hess PLUS battery test Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 07:53:50 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <36070f22.182367112 mail-hub> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"APEBJ3.0.fR4.35X0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22423 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 18 Sep 1998 01:55:19 -0600, Evan Soule wrote: [snip] Scott: >That's not surprising. Twenty-four 6 volt batteries in series at 2 amps is >288 watts, which at 85 rpm is about 21 ft-lbs (29 newton-meters) of torque >(assuming the Newman motor is 90% efficient). Most folks could only exert >a 2 or 3 ft-lb drag on a smooth shaft wearing gloves and the motor would >not slow perceptibly under such a small load. Robin: Scott I get nearer to 135 ft-lb than 21 (i.e. 183 newton*m). Are you sure your calculation is correct? Scott: >>It is apparent from the statement above that Appelbaum considers a reading >>that stays between 1.7 and 2 amps to be "steady". That range is big enough >>to include the current variations that would be expected from the >>relatively small load presented by a gloved hand grabbing a smooth shaft. [snip] Evan: >Dear Scott, > >I check with Donny regarding your comment above and this was his reply: > >"When we first started the motor up it was running at 2 amp draw, but later >when we started it up again it was noticed that the reading was only 1.7 >amps. > >"When we were trying to choke it down, however, there was NO fluctuation of >the meter. It was as though the shaft had NO additional load on it!" > >Donny Appelbaum Not surprising, considering the very large torque produced. (The force required to stop the motor if the shaft has a 1 inch diameter would be about 3000 lb!) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 02:27:05 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA13824; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 02:26:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 02:26:24 -0700 From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [off topic] Intense radiation around Europa Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:27:38 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3609270f.188494855 mail-hub> References: <3601A04E.73A64792 verisoft.com.tr> In-Reply-To: <3601A04E.73A64792 verisoft.com.tr> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"uCsZQ3.0.mN3._SY0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22424 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 18 Sep 1998 02:50:38 +0300, Hamdi Ucar wrote: [snip] >"The radiation around Europa measures about 25 megarads per month. That's >enough radiation to fry a desktop computer in about five minutes," he said. ><< > >I did know the presence of a radiation around Europa until now. I never encountered such a info on Nasa sites. This is strange. Both the radiation and missing information. [snip] Is this a consequence of Jupiter's magnetic field, and if so does anyone know if generally speaking there is a correlation between planet size and magnetic field strength? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 06:42:25 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA26615; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 06:39:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 06:39:10 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980918083910.00dabc24 mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:39:10 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Clarke-Hess PLUS battery test In-Reply-To: <36070f22.182367112 mail-hub> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"bKi4b3.0.lV6.z9c0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22425 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 07:53 9/18/98 GMT, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >Scott I get nearer to 135 ft-lb than 21 (i.e. 183 newton*m). Are you >sure your calculation is correct? Yes. You forgot to multiply 85 rpm by 2*PI to convert it to radians/minute. Easy mistake....I've made it zillions of times myself. 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 Sep 18 06:49:08 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA26525; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 06:48:06 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 06:48:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980918083451.00da9da4 mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:34:51 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Clarke-Hess PLUS battery test In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"Mwps9.0.NU6.KIc0s" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22426 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 01:55 9/18/98 -0600, Evan Soule wrote: >I check with Donny regarding your comment above and this was his reply: > >"When we first started the motor up it was running at 2 amp draw, but later >when we started it up again it was noticed that the reading was only 1.7 >amps. The decrease is to be expected for two reasons, Cu resistivity increases rather dramatically with temperature and, since the bearings were binding somewhat, some usage would "wear-in" the bearings and loosen them. >"When we were trying to choke it down, however, there was NO fluctuation of >the meter. It was as though the shaft had NO additional load on it!" Congratulations, Evan. Now we're actually getting some precise information. However, the story is still full of possible holes. If you wish to make it more convincing, please obtain the following additional information: What is the resolution of the current meter? (i.e. was it displaying 1.7 amps or 1.70 amps or 1.700 amps, etc.) What is the diameter of the shaft they were grabbing? (VERY IMPORTANT) What is the approximate mass of the rotating portion of Newman's motor? What is the approximate diameter of the rotating portion of Newman's motor? What was the approximate duration of each shaft grabbing effort? What was the "strength-category" of the person grabbing the shaft? (e.g. strong man, average man, strong woman, average woman, child, etc.) What was the glove material, it's surface texture and condition? (e.g. suede leather...well-worn, thick new cowhide, smooth well-tanned driving gloves, Neoprene chemical gloves, Gortex ski mittens, cotton yardwork gloves, etc.) Only with reasonably accurate answers to these questions can we even begin to judge whether the motor's performance in this subjective demonstration was anomalous. 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 Sep 18 07:49:40 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA17553; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 07:45:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 07:45:47 -0700 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:30:09 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Change the vortex-L rules? Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809181046_MC2-59E7-A0B7 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"wYTOC.0.6I4.Q8d0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22427 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Bill Beaty asks: Below are examples of the rules in place on FREENRG-L and TAOSHUM-L. Should I make one of them the Rule No. 1 for vortex-L as well? No. It ain't broken, don't fix it. The temporary fix of re-opening VortexB-L was a good move. I wish John Allan would post there when he discusses Meyer or Secret Sex Tapes. (I trash his messages; I only heard about that when Jeane Manning complained.) - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 07:49:52 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA17615; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 07:45:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 07:45:55 -0700 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:31:11 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Storms: Hansen: calorimetry comments Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809181046_MC2-59E7-A0B9 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"2Mog-1.0.2J4.Y8d0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22428 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Ed Storms writes: Dr. Hansen again raises the possibility of there being a change in chemical reaction which is interpreted as excess power. As noted above, a chemical reaction requires the presences of materials that can react. Please give me examples of any chemical reaction you can justify using known values for the Gibbs energy that would account for the observed behavior. Yeah, and make those quantitative examples. McKubre et al. listed all known chemical reactions for all materials in their cell, and compared the potential energy from these materials to the actual, measured energy release. See "Development of Advanced Concepts for Nuclear Processes in Deuterated Metals," EPRI TR-104195, pages 3A-14 through 3A-16. Quoting my review: [McKubre's] in-depth discussion of these reactions shows they are extremely unlikely because, for example, there is no "unlimited supply of oxygen" in the cell. If we assume oxygen does somehow get in, the four reactions [listed in paper] would produce a total of 7 kJ, less than 1% of the total, or 3% of the energy produced by the larger continuous heat bursts. Hansen should give us quantitative list of species and chemical reactions. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 07:50:06 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA17712; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 07:46:12 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 07:46:12 -0700 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:30:23 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: [OFF TOPIC] Newman's marketing plan Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809181046_MC2-59E7-A0B8 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"bFecy2.0.gK4.p8d0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22429 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex I am preparing to have a chat with Evan Soule about Newman's marketing plans. As I said, I am not in charge of Coca Cola's marketing (the best I have ever seen!), but I know a thing or two. This is getting off-topic, but here are some "talking points" I e-mailed Evan, as an agenda. . . . I cannot answer these questions for you; you have to make decisions and iron out a coherent plan and policy. That does not mean you have to stick to the policy no matter what. It must be flexible. You must be ready to take advantage of unexpected opportunities should they arise. Anyway, here are some basic questions: What is my long term strategic goal? (I believe Newman wants to mass produce machines himself. That's fine -- that's a viable goal, *if* your customers want you to do that. The customers have the final say.) What intermediate tactical steps are needed to achieve the final goal? (This is where you are weak, I think.) What message do you want to send the customer? (Very weak! I have seen videos and heard about Newman's presentations, and I know you are doing this wrong.) What value do I bring the customer? Why should anyone want to buy my product? (This is a lot more difficult than it sounds, because of your problems with the P.O.) Where do I find my customers? Who do I want to sell to? Investors, end users, industrialists? All of the above? What can I do about the Patent Office? Should I continue with my present tactics, or is it time to try something new? What is my competition, and what should I say about it, and do about it? Some specific here-and-now considerations: How do I present this technology to my audience? What information should I present to them, in what order? What audio-visual backups do I need? How do I put together an effective trade-show demonstration of the machine? (This is VITAL with a start-up product . . .) [What kind of brochures, mail-outs and press releases do I need?] How do I present myself to the audience? What do I say about myself? (Remember, the audience wants to know about the product, not the man.) Focus on the customer, not on yourself. To paraphrase JFK, ask not what your customer can do for you, ask what you can do for your customer. That must be your guiding principle. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 07:56:23 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA21535; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 07:54:12 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 07:54:12 -0700 Message-ID: <3602742A.C16FBC9 bellsouth.net> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:54:34 -0400 From: Terry Blanton Reply-To: commengr bellsouth.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC IRONY - US Political Quote of the Century References: <005801bde2b0$a4e16bc0$b28f85ce default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"I5BdI3.0.OG5.JGd0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22430 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frederick J Sparber wrote: > "Do as I Say, Not as I Do." :-) > > Frederick You definately do not want to do as Clinton does. Check out the Starr Report narrative, footnotes 210 and 237. Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 08:03:01 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA23244; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 07:58:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 07:58:42 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980918105025.00840d00 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:50:25 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Change the vortex-L rules? In-Reply-To: <199809181046_MC2-59E7-A0B7 compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"wJjg63.0.6h5.XKd0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22431 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:30 AM 9/18/98 -0400, Jed wrote: >Bill Beaty asks: > Below are examples of the rules in place on FREENRG-L and TAOSHUM-L. > Should I make one of them the Rule No. 1 for vortex-L as well? > >No. It ain't broken, don't fix it. > >The temporary fix of re-opening VortexB-L was a good move. I wish John Allan >would post there when he discusses Meyer or Secret Sex Tapes. (I trash his >messages; I only heard about that when Jeane Manning complained.) > Jed, please stop it. You both began this. and bring it up continuously. Go to vortex-b if you have something nasty to say, or wish to discuss Meyer as above. Thanks in advance. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 08:18:41 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA29735; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:15:02 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:15:02 -0700 Message-Id: <199809181515.KAA04859 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:14:49 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: Clarke-Hess PLUS battery test Resent-Message-ID: <"Ac_Td1.0.VG7.sZd0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22433 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >On Fri, 18 Sep 1998 01:55:19 -0600, Evan Soule wrote: >[snip] >Scott: >>That's not surprising. Twenty-four 6 volt batteries in series at 2 amps is >>288 watts, which at 85 rpm is about 21 ft-lbs (29 newton-meters) of torque >>(assuming the Newman motor is 90% efficient). Most folks could only exert >>a 2 or 3 ft-lb drag on a smooth shaft wearing gloves and the motor would >>not slow perceptibly under such a small load. > >Robin: >Scott I get nearer to 135 ft-lb than 21 (i.e. 183 newton*m). Are you >sure your calculation is correct? ***{I get about the same answer as Scott. P = RT, where P is power in ft-lbs/sec, R is angular velocity in radians/sec, and T is torque in ft-lbs. Here P = (288/746)550 = 212.3 ft-lbs/sec, R = 2pi(85)/60 = 8.9 rad/sec, and thus T = 23.9 ft-lbs if the motor efficiency is 100%. But Scott assumed 90% efficiency, which gives T = (23.9)(.9) = 21.47 ft-lbs. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >Scott: >>>It is apparent from the statement above that Appelbaum considers a reading >>>that stays between 1.7 and 2 amps to be "steady". That range is big enough >>>to include the current variations that would be expected from the >>>relatively small load presented by a gloved hand grabbing a smooth shaft. >[snip] >Evan: >>Dear Scott, >> >>I check with Donny regarding your comment above and this was his reply: >> >>"When we first started the motor up it was running at 2 amp draw, but later >>when we started it up again it was noticed that the reading was only 1.7 >>amps. >> >>"When we were trying to choke it down, however, there was NO fluctuation of >>the meter. It was as though the shaft had NO additional load on it!" >> >>Donny Appelbaum >Not surprising, considering the very large torque produced. >(The force required to stop the motor if the shaft has a 1 inch >diameter would be about 3000 lb!) ***{This 3000 lbs is based on your overly large calculation of torque, above. Using 21.47 ft-lbs for the torque, however, we get (21.47)(12)/(.5) = 515 lbs of force on the surface of a 1 inch diameter shaft. My guess is that a person gripping the shaft tightly with gloved hands would be able to exert 50 lbs of force, which would increase the load, and hence the current draw, by roughly 10%. The power factor would increase, so 10% is an overestimate, but it nevertheless strikes me as very surprising that the meter reading did not rise above 1.7 amps. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 08:19:15 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA29669; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:14:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:14:55 -0700 Message-Id: <199809181515.KAA04856 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:14:48 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: Change the vortex-L rules? Resent-Message-ID: <"mbFtz3.0.QF7.lZd0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22432 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >At 6:25 PM 9/17/98, William Beaty wrote: >[snip] >> >>Below are examples of the rules in place on FREENRG-L and TAOSHUM-L. >>Should I make one of them the Rule No. 1 for vortex-L as well? > >Since vortexb-l is unrestricted why not just banish such unpleasant >discussion to vortexb-l? ***{Good idea. I agree. Even here, however, a soft touch and a reluctance to intervene is to be strongly preferred. Only egregious and repeated transgressions merit punitive action. The rest can be dealt with by focusing the discussion on the transgression itself. --Mitchell Jones}*** If either party doesn't want to go there - it's >an automatic end of discussion. Also, it would be a reasonable courtesy to >at least give a warning before cutting someone off the list. We all make >mistakes. > >This list has been a wonderful place for several years, so that is plenty >of reason not to make changes now. ***{I can't speak to that, since I haven't been here, but I will take the risk of uncivil discussion in preference to censorship any day. To paraphrase Jefferson: "The moderator who moderates least moderates best." --Mitchell Jones}*** I think one reason things have gone >downhill is that the vortex meat and potatoes, discussion of energy related >experiments, has been a bit lite of late. It will probably pick up again >this winter. > >It is too bad the vacuum tends to get filled with nutrient free material. > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 08:32:44 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA02595; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:29:49 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:29:49 -0700 Message-Id: <199809181530.KAA05284 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:29:45 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: Change the vortex-L rules? Resent-Message-ID: <"Nvb6V3.0.Je.ind0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22434 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >At 10:30 AM 9/18/98 -0400, Jed wrote: >>Bill Beaty asks: >> Below are examples of the rules in place on FREENRG-L and >TAOSHUM-L. >> Should I make one of them the Rule No. 1 for vortex-L as well? >> >>No. It ain't broken, don't fix it. >> >>The temporary fix of re-opening VortexB-L was a good move. I wish John Allan >>would post there when he discusses Meyer or Secret Sex Tapes. (I trash his >>messages; I only heard about that when Jeane Manning complained.) >> > > Jed, please stop it. > > You both began this. and bring it up continuously. Go to vortex-b >if you have something nasty to say, or wish to discuss Meyer as above. > > Thanks in advance. ***{What in the world are you talking about? There wasn't anything out of line in what Jed said, above. All your message demonstrates to me is that you have a chip on your shoulder where Jed is concerned. To that extent, your comments are similar to those of John Allan, whose messages, by the way, I also trash. --Mitchell Jones}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 08:46:01 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA08878; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:43:26 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:43:26 -0700 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:44:40 -0700 Message-Id: <199809181544.IAA08085 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: [off topic] Intense radiation around Europa Resent-Message-ID: <"E2Epj2.0.eA2.U-d0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22435 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Subject: Los Alamos Receives NASA Funding To Test Critical Instrument > Components For Possible Use On Future Europa Mission > Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 18:05:34 -0700 (PDT) > From: Ron Baalke > > >>> >Another obstacle is making sure the IPR survives Jupiter's intense radiation that surrounds Europa, he added. > >"The radiation around Europa measures about 25 megarads per month. That's >enough radiation to fry a desktop computer in about five minutes," he said. ><< > >I did know the presence of a radiation around Europa until now. I never encountered such a info on Nasa sites. This is strange. Both the radiation and missing information. I'm blanking on where and when I read about this. But it is well known that there is intense radiation between IO and Jupiter. There is even a sulphur nuebula around the planet in the shape of a torus. I am not aware of the Europa radiation, but there is a lot of detail about those planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune) that is fairly well established by all of the satelites. It just hasn't made it into the popular press as of yet. I have a book on Jupiter alone, and the Cambridge Atlas of Astronomy which have some descriptions of the satelites and of the plasma torus within which Io rides. Europa could easily have a similar thing going on. The radio emissions from Jupiter are quite loud. "The Giant Planet Jupiter" by Rogers has an entire section devoted to the Io torus and the nature of the radiation. I didn't search to see if he discusses a similar phenomena on Europa. But sufice it to say that there is a lot of activity going on around Jupiter. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 08:54:08 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA14201; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:52:14 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:52:14 -0700 Message-Id: <199809181546.LAA20327 mercury.mv.net> Subject: Nuclear Solutions Radwaste Process Date: Fri, 18 Sep 98 11:51:25 -0000 x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: "E.F. Mallove" To: "VORTEX" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id IAA14092 Resent-Message-ID: <"UDeZm3.0.ZT3.i6e0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22436 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: FROM: Infinite Energy Magazine Dr. Eugene F. Mallove, Editor-in-Chief Cold Fusion Technology, Inc. P.O. Box 2816 Concord, NH 03302-2816 603-228-4516; Fax: 603-224-5975; editor infinite-energy.com http://www.infinite-energy.com € € € PRESS RELEASE € € € Environmental Breakthrough: Photo-Remediation of Nuclear Waste September 18, 1998 Concord, New Hampshire : The cover story of the latest issue of Infinite Energy Magazine (Aug.-Sept. 1998) is the first detailed public description of a process called ³photo-remediation,² which could revolutionize the disposal of nuclear waste. It appa rently offers a solution to radioactive waste remediation that could be implemented quickly ‹- within months in pilot facilities. Photo-remediation uses high energy x-rays (gamma rays) to destabilize radioactive materials. The process also generates additional energy in the form of neutrons, the energy of which can be converted to heat and electricity, then used to run the process i tself. Hence, nuclear waste could become the agent of its own destruction. By transmuting dangerous radionuclides via electrically generated high-energy x-rays, the process drastically reduces the time for the natural decay of the waste. The process does not involve burial of nuclear waste in geologic formations, nor does it employ unconventional nuclear physics such as has been proposed in the emerging ³cold fusion² or ³low energy nuclear reactions² field. The process is completely conve ntional. Why this method was overlooked by the nuclear industry is a story in itself, which is recounted in the Infinite Energy article. A technical article by nuclear physicist Dr. Paul M. Brown, Vice President of Nuclear Solutions, LLC of Aurora, Colorado shows how overlooked yet completely conventional nuclear physics can be used to drastically reduce the half-lives of prominent radioa ctive isotopes in nuclear waste. For example: technetium-99 (which becomes stable after 2,120,000 years --after ten half-lives) can be reduced to material that becomes stable in just 43 days; and cesium-137 (which becomes stable after 302 years) can be r educed to products that are stable within 130 days. Patents have been filed on the photo-remediation process. Inventor Dr. Paul Brown states in his article, ³The application of this process should boost the nuclear power industry by providing a cheap, effective method for disposal of the reactor waste products.² Company President David Samuel told Infinite Energy that this week he and Dr. Paul Brown attended the Spectrum Œ98 International Conference on Decommissioning and Decontamination of Nuclear Waste in Denver, Colorado. There they met with people at high l evels within the US Department of Energy. Samuel said, ³Initial comments received when we presented the process were very skeptical, but within minutes of Dr. Brown¹s detailed explanation of the process the skeptics became enthusiasts.² According to Samuel, there have been several requests for immediate demonstrations and strong indications that contracts for pilot plant operations would be initiated following the expected successful experiments. Testing has already been done at the corp orate laboratory of Nuclear Solutions. Samuel says that representatives from several government-owned laboratories and facilities expressed the opinion that the process could revolutionize the nuclear industry. It would eliminate many of the present dil emmas in the handling of nuclear waste. The process could save the government and industry many billions of dollars. Another industry cited by Samuel and Dr. Brown as a large potential client for this technology is the radiopharmaceutical industry (nucle ar medicine) ‹ which requires both the production and destruction of radioisotopes. Journalists requesting Dr. Paul Brown¹s article should contact the publishing offices of Infinite Energy Magazine. Further information on the corporate activity of Nuclear Solutions, LLC should be addressed to President David Samuel at 303-574-9697, ext. 2 or at samuel nucsol.com. On October 11, 1998, in Manchester, New Hampshire, Dr. Brown will be one of several invited speakers at an all-day New Energy Symposium sponsored by Infinite Energy Magazine. The conference will feature speakers such as Dr. Edmund Storms (Los Alamos Natio nal Laboratory, retired), Dr. Peter Graneau of the Center for Electromagnetics Research, Dan Cavicchio of the New Energy Partners investment firm, and Dr. Les Case, of Fusion Power, Inc. in New Hampshire. Please contact the offices of Infinite Energy m agazine for further details. # End # From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 09:21:41 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA27306; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:19:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:19:54 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980918121138.00832590 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:11:38 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Change the vortex-L rules? In-Reply-To: <199809181530.KAA05284 smtp.jump.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"AylHa.0.Xg6.fWe0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22437 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:29 AM 9/18/98 -0600, you wrote: >> Thanks in advance. > >***{What in the world are you talking about? There wasn't anything out of >line in what Jed said, above. All your message demonstrates to me is that >you have a chip on your shoulder where Jed is concerned. To that extent, >your comments are similar to those of John Allan, whose messages, by the >way, I also trash. --Mitchell Jones}*** I believe your post stated you were new to vortex, so if you are unfamiliar, it is suggested you either read the posts, or take your comments, which border on vitriol, elsewhere. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 09:29:19 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA30737; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:26:44 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:26:44 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980918112956.00da6b4c mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 11:29:56 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Nuclear Solutions Radwaste Process In-Reply-To: <199809181546.LAA20327 mercury.mv.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"ifJKA3.0.1W7.3de0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22438 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:51 9/18/98 -0000, E.F. Mallove wrote: ....shows how overlooked yet completely conventional nuclear physics can be used to drastically reduce the half-lives of prominent radioactive isotopes.... Well, Gene, you sure know how to get my attention! Can you supply some details now or do we have to wait for the smail? Is the article on your web site? 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 Sep 18 09:52:31 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA07173; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:50:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:50:18 -0700 Message-Id: <199809181644.MAA01334 mercury.mv.net> Subject: Re: Nuclear Solutions Radwaste Process Date: Fri, 18 Sep 98 12:49:29 -0000 x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: "E.F. Mallove" To: "VORTEX" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Resent-Message-ID: <"WKZlf.0.tl1.8ze0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22439 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Well, Gene, you sure know how to get my attention! Can you supply some >details now or do we have to wait for the smail? Is the article on your >web site? Not on WWW site. Please wait for the smail -- or call Paul Brown. Gene From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 09:57:01 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA07621; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:51:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:51:42 -0700 Comments: ( Received on ftpbox.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com ) Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com Message-ID: <36028F80.5F669658 css.mot.com> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 11:51:12 -0500 From: John Steck Organization: Motorola PCS - Rapid Tooling Applications X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Newman's marketing plan References: <199809181046_MC2-59E7-A0B8 compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"BiFdJ1.0.xs1.T-e0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22440 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > What is my long term strategic goal? (I believe Newman wants to mass produce > machines himself. That's fine -- that's a viable goal, *if* your customers > want you to do that. The customers have the final say.) I still fail to see how he can not accomplish this very goal "mass-producing" small, inexpensive units. Start with camping and fishing applications. Plenty of interested customers that buy A LOT of small, portable generators right now. Bank-roll more ambitious ventures from the proceeds and indirect advertising. Every empire starts small. There are no 'get rich quick' schemes other than hard work or buying a lottery ticket. I wish everyone would stop equating success with corporate sponsorship. Deep pockets only facilitate, complicate, and regulate. What I want to know is, if this technology is really legitimate, why doesn't Joe just incorporate and issue stock to raise the manufacturing startup capital on his own? First one out of the blocks always has a market advantage, patent or no. Save the intellectual rights fight for when there is some actual money to fight over. Worrying about infringments before the first one is even built is just playing with yourself. I wont spend 10k like Jed, but I would willingly buy a $200 unit that would power my coffee maker, space heater, and portable T.V. while ice fishing. I know of at least 100 others that would jump at the oportunity and probably wouldn't care the least about the actual physics behind it. Tell you what, manufacture a small "self-perpetuating" 500W generator unit and give me a 10% commission on each one I sell and I will make you richer than any royalties contact ever could. Guranteed. No strings attached. ....and don't give me that "call Joe" crap Evan. Tell him or don't tell him, I don't care. You work for him not me. If he wants to rake in the big bucks, strip my address out of the header and have him drop me a line. If he would rather piss and moan about the inequities of life, respectfully count me out. The offer is on the table (and it goes for anyone on this list that has a working device). -- Legal mumbo-jumbo: Opinions and offers expressed are my own and do not represent or imply those of Motorola Inc. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John E. Steck Senior Mechanical Engineer Rapid Tooling Applications Motorola, Libertyville, IL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 09:58:55 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA10305; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:56:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:56:17 -0700 Message-ID: <005b01bde325$3da105e0$d4b4bfa8 default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Cc: "George" Subject: Off Topic, Punctuation is Important Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:55:58 -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: <"Sg8rx.0.mW2.l2f0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22441 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: AP Headline: Study:Less High-Schoolers Having Sex I read it: Study-Less High-Schoolers Having Sex Oh Well. :-( Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 10:16:25 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA17024; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:12:49 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:12:49 -0700 Message-ID: <360293B9.89DA7B64 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 20:09:13 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [off topic] Intense radiation around Europa References: <199809181544.IAA08085 Au.oro.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"f4tqr.0.N94.DIf0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22442 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Ross Tessien wrote: > > > [snip] > >"The radiation around Europa measures about 25 megarads per month. That's > >enough radiation to fry a desktop computer in about five minutes," he said. > ><< [snip] > I'm blanking on where and when I read about this. But it is well known that > there is intense radiation between IO and Jupiter. With a web search "Jupiter & radiation", i found a relevant article at "http://kuspa1.phsx.ukans.edu:8000/~tizby/bursts.html" : "Particle Radiation Bursts at Jupiter", many search results point to "Synchrotron Radiation". This is natural, due to strong magnetic field and fast rotation of Jupiter. Maybe this is they talking about. Also strong radio noise come directly from Jupiter. On Nasa site (Galileo) it is written "With the advent of radio astronomy, we discovered that Jupiter is a source of strong radio-frequency noise, suggesting electrical activity". [snip] Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 11:35:52 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA21693; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 11:34:31 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 11:34:31 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:44:30 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Clarke-Hess PLUS battery test Resent-Message-ID: <"MQtrA2.0.YI5.rUg0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22443 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >At 01:55 9/18/98 -0600, Evan Soule wrote: > >>I check with Donny regarding your comment above and this was his reply: >> >>"When we first started the motor up it was running at 2 amp draw, but later >>when we started it up again it was noticed that the reading was only 1.7 >>amps. > >The decrease is to be expected for two reasons, Cu resistivity increases >rather dramatically with temperature and, since the bearings were binding >somewhat, some usage would "wear-in" the bearings and loosen them. > >>"When we were trying to choke it down, however, there was NO fluctuation of >>the meter. It was as though the shaft had NO additional load on it!" > >Congratulations, Evan. Now we're actually getting some precise >information. However, the story is still full of possible holes. If you >wish to make it more convincing, please obtain the following additional >information: > >What is the resolution of the current meter? (i.e. was it displaying 1.7 >amps or 1.70 amps or 1.700 amps, etc.) > >What is the diameter of the shaft they were grabbing? (VERY IMPORTANT) > >What is the approximate mass of the rotating portion of Newman's motor? > >What is the approximate diameter of the rotating portion of Newman's motor? > >What was the approximate duration of each shaft grabbing effort? > >What was the "strength-category" of the person grabbing the shaft? (e.g. >strong man, average man, strong woman, average woman, child, etc.) > >What was the glove material, it's surface texture and condition? (e.g. >suede leather...well-worn, thick new cowhide, smooth well-tanned driving >gloves, Neoprene chemical gloves, Gortex ski mittens, cotton yardwork >gloves, etc.) > >Only with reasonably accurate answers to these questions can we even begin >to judge whether the motor's performance in this subjective demonstration >was anomalous. > > > >Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.eden.com/~little >Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA >512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email) Dear Scott, So that there would be no miscommunication of data, if you wish to contact Joe and obtain the above data/specs you are welcome to do so ... his numbers: (602) 977-2813 (Phoenix), or (602) 583-4333 (Phoenix), or (303) 814-3403 (Castle Rock) Also, he can be reached by anyone, from anywhere on the planet, this Sunday from 9am-9:30am (Pacific Time)/12noon-12:30pm (Eastern) when he hosts his radio program. The telephone number to call: (602) 247-KFNX in Phoenix. He has stated to me that he intends to have the dynamometer, he recently purchased, operational to provide more of an "absolute subjective" series of test measurements. Evan Soule' From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 11:38:37 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA23132; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 11:36:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 11:36:20 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:46:22 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Clarke-Hess PLUS battery test Resent-Message-ID: <"ac3Ri3.0.0f5.YWg0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22444 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >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) Another update: Joe's motor is now drawing only 100 milliamps while the rpms remain c. 100; the motor still cannot be 'choked down' and the current does not go up when such an attempt is made. ERS From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 11:41:10 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA23402; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 11:36:34 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 11:36:34 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:46:19 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Newman's marketing plan Resent-Message-ID: <"_Ofby1.0.Oj5.nWg0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22445 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Jed Rothwell wrote: >> What is my long term strategic goal? (I believe Newman wants to mass produce >> machines himself. That's fine -- that's a viable goal, *if* your customers >> want you to do that. The customers have the final say.) > >I still fail to see how he can not accomplish this very goal "mass-producing" >small, inexpensive units. Start with camping and fishing applications. Plenty >of interested customers that buy A LOT of small, portable generators right >now. >Bank-roll more ambitious ventures from the proceeds and indirect advertising. > >Every empire starts small. There are no 'get rich quick' schemes other than >hard work or buying a lottery ticket. I wish everyone would stop equating >success with corporate sponsorship. Deep pockets only facilitate, complicate, >and regulate. > >What I want to know is, if this technology is really legitimate, why >doesn't Joe >just incorporate and issue stock to raise the manufacturing startup capital on >his own? First one out of the blocks always has a market advantage, patent or >no. Save the intellectual rights fight for when there is some actual money to >fight over. Worrying about infringments before the first one is even built is >just playing with yourself. > >I wont spend 10k like Jed, but I would willingly buy a $200 unit that would >power my coffee maker, space heater, and portable T.V. while ice fishing. I >know of at least 100 others that would jump at the oportunity and probably >wouldn't care the least about the actual physics behind it. > >Tell you what, manufacture a small "self-perpetuating" 500W generator unit and >give me a 10% commission on each one I sell and I will make you richer than any >royalties contact ever could. Guranteed. No strings attached. > >....and don't give me that "call Joe" crap Evan. Tell him or don't tell him, I >don't care. You work for him not me. If he wants to rake in the big bucks, >strip my address out of the header and have him drop me a line. If he would >rather piss and moan about the inequities of life, respectfully count me out. > >The offer is on the table (and it goes for anyone on this list that has a >working device). > >-- > Legal mumbo-jumbo: > Opinions and offers expressed are my own and do not > represent or imply those of Motorola Inc. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > John E. Steck > Senior Mechanical Engineer > Rapid Tooling Applications > Motorola, Libertyville, IL > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dear John, Joe speaks to/with others for himself. And is it YOUR or OTHERS suggestion(s)/recommendation(s) -- not mine. Joe has continually told me that individuals with "recommendations" repeatedly choose not to call him and discuss their suggestions with him _directly_. So, John, I am not giving you any "crap." This is Joe's request. We can also jawbone amongst ourselves ad infinitum on this List about such "recommendations". Fine. Whatever. You can call him or you cannot call him directly -- frankly and honestly (and not meaning to sound antagonistic about it) --- but I really don't care one way or the other. Evan "None attains to the rank of Truth until a thousand otherwise sincere people have testified that he is a heretic." -- Sufi Junaid From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 11:49:29 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA28507; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 11:47:36 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 11:47:36 -0700 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 14:45:01 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Change the vortex-L rules? Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809181448_MC2-59DB-DE23 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"aY2S6.0.Jz6.7hg0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22447 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Mitchell Swartz feeds me the vaudeville routine: Jed, please st . . . WHAT? What's that you say? I've got a what? You both began this. and bring it up . . . What?!? Could you type that more clearly please? I can't hear you. What's that funny punctuation with the period? Go to vortex-b . . . I have a WHAT? In my ear?!? . . . ay, or wish to discuss Meyer as above. T . . . anks in advance. The tanks are advancing? Sorry, I can't hear you. I have a carrot in my ear! (Translation: I trash your messages too.) - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 11:49:44 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA28473; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 11:47:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 11:47:30 -0700 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 14:44:51 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Newman's marketing plan Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809181448_MC2-59DB-DE22 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"IxYXz2.0.ny6.2hg0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22446 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex John Steck writes: I still fail to see how he can not accomplish this very goal "mass-producing" small, inexpensive units. Start with camping and fishing applications . . . Good idea! I agree that mass production is a reasonable goal, but it will take some intermediate tactical steps, like the ones you suggest: "incorporate and issue stock to raise the manufacturing startup capital." My point is that Soule and Newman cannot raise startup capital because their presentation alienates and confuses potential investors. Every empire starts small. There are no 'get rich quick' schemes other than hard work or buying a lottery ticket. I wish everyone would stop equating success with corporate sponsorship. Deep pockets only facilitate, complicate, and regulate. Right. You want to avoid the internal politics and regulations in large corporations. However, public safety regulation will be an issue in the U.S. This is what clobbered the Kerosun company. Tell you what, manufacture a small "self-perpetuating" 500W generator unit and give me a 10% commission on each one I sell and I will make you richer than any royalties contact ever could. Guranteed. No strings attached. An excellent offer. Newman & Soule would be fools to turn it down. ....and don't give me that "call Joe" crap Evan. Tell him or don't tell him, I don't care. You work for him not me . . . If he would rather piss and moan about the inequities of life, respectfully count me out. I'd like to say the same thing, but I am the soul of tact and diplomacy, so I wouldn't put it so indecorously. The offer is on the table (and it goes for anyone on this list that has a working device). I would be happy to assist in any such venture. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 12:18:56 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA07374; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:17:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:17:30 -0700 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:14:20 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Newman's marketing plan Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809181517_MC2-59F2-A02B compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"Uh9gr3.0.1p1.97h0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22448 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Evan Soule wrote: Joe has continually told me that individuals with "recommendations" repeatedly choose not to call him and discuss their suggestions with him _directly_. So, John, I am not giving you any "crap." This is Joe's request. Evan, I hate to sound like a broken record or a know-it-all, but this is business. Business! John Steck is a prospective customer. Joe must to treat him with respect, and he must respond promptly. If Joe wants to discuss suggestions _directly_, he must get his own e-mail account! No businessman in the 1990s works without e-mail. You cannot make the rules. You do not tell a busy engineer like Steck to drop what he is doing and place a long distance call in the middle of the day to talk about something unrelated to his job. You don't treat people this way if you want to make money. Again, we are back to the ABCs of marketing, and I am sorry to repeat this, but you people are making every mistake in the book. y! I sincerely suggest that you & Joe should go to the library and read a few introductory books on marketing and how to deal with customers. Where do you think I learned this stuff? None of my suggestions are original, profound, or difficult to master. One last time: I am no expert, but I'd be happy to offer what little help I can. Feel free to call, or have Joe call after he reads my agenda. This is off-topic so I will drop the discussion here. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 12:29:30 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA11599; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:26:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:26:00 -0700 Message-ID: <3602A6FC.327E earthlink.net> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:31:24 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rmforall earthlink.net, Vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Y2K: Bennett: Nation's Largest Utilities 6.12.98 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------67C85EC440D4" Resent-Message-ID: <"402fJ.0.9r2.7Fh0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22449 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. --------------67C85EC440D4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://www.senate.gov/~bennett/pr0612c98.html --------------67C85EC440D4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="pr0612c98.html" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="pr0612c98.html" Content-Base: "http://www.senate.gov/~bennett/pr0612c 98.html" Sen. Bennett--Press Release (6/12/98)Y2K Committee Announces Survey Results Measuring Y2K Preparedness of Nation's Largest Utilities

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 12, 1998


Y2K Committee Announces Survey Results Measuring Y2K Preparedness of Nation's Largest Utilities

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- At the first hearing of the new Senate Committee on the Year 2000, members discussed the threat of the millennial bug to the nation's energy supply and announced the results of a new survey measuring the Y2K preparedness of the nation' s 10 largest utility corporations.

The survey results follow:

Executive Summary

The Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem recently completed a survey of ten of the largest oil, gas, and electric utilities in the United States. The purpose of this survey was to determine the status of the utility industry in terms of its year 2000 (Y2K) preparedness.

  • Based on the survey results, we conclude that while these utilities are proceeding in the right direction, the pace of remedial efforts is too slow and the associated milestone dates are so distant that there is significant cause for concern.
  • It is also clear from the survey responses that despite substantial completion of initial assessments, firms are not confident that they have a complete and accurate picture of their present Y2K compliance, making assurances of timely Y2K compliance little more than a hope.
  • Experts contend that the most difficult aspects of remediation are in the renovation and testing phases; most of the firms surveyed have not begun these critical phases of remediation.
  • Utilities' ignorance of the Y2K compliance of critical suppliers, vendors, and servicers and their lack of assurances from same create additional uncertainty for utility consumers.
  • Since the firms tested are among the largest utilities in their fields with the most available resources, we are pessimistic about the implications for the rest of the utility sector.

Purpose and Methodology

We asked survey respondents for information on their automated systems used to manage and operate their respective utilities; these include both their computers systems and embedded systems such as process control units used in their production and distri bution systems. While the survey is not statistically representative of the utility industry at large, the inclusion of 10 of the largest oil, gas, and electric utilities, including generation, transmission, and distribution facilities, ensures broad re presentation of the industry. Pledges of confidentiality were made to survey respondents in order to facilitate honest and candid answers to survey questions.

Other studies have concluded that smaller utility companies are not as advanced in their Y2K preparedness as their larger counterparts. Hence, the results presented here probably represent the best prepared portion of the industry.

Findings

The utilities surveyed generally did not become aware of their Y2K problems until 1995 or later. Each of them has since created a formal Y2K project within their firm. Unfortunately, only two of the utilities surveyed reported that they have completed t he initial assessments of their automated systems, especially on the embedded systems side where four firms were unable to identify how many embedded systems they have in service.

All of the survey respondents reported using outside consultants or contractors in combination with in-house personnel in their Y2K assessment. All of the companies reported significant numbers of automated systems, with one firm reporting over 300,000. The typical firm reported about one-third to one-half of its systems were mission critical.

Of those who had identified their embedded systems, there was a wide variation in the number reported. Some firms reported numbers of embedded systems by type of application while others reported on a detailed inventory basis. In general, embedded syste ms assessments have lagged computer systems assessments. We were told that this is because the problem in embedded systems was not apparent until recently.

Costs for remediation also varied significantly, due perhaps to the fact that the companies involved were not homogeneous in terms of service provided and the types of assets in place, as well as the fact that final assessments are not complete. Two firm s were unable to report their projected remediation costs. Notwithstanding the variation in estimated remediation costs, the total projected cost of remediation for the survey firms was over $400 million.

The typical utility surveyed expects to renovate about 75 percent of its noncompliant systems and to replace or retire the remainder.

All of the firms surveyed were optimistic that they would have their mission critical systems renovated or replaced by January 1, 2000; however, most implied that remediation efforts for non-mission critical systems would still be on-going after January 1 , 2000. All the firms surveyed reported checking with suppliers and servicers, but few of them received assurances of uninterrupted service and many are having difficulty obtaining responses to their inquiries. This creates some additional uncertainty f or continuous utility service after the millennial date change depending on the criticality of goods and services provided by vendors, suppliers, and servicers.

While most surveyed firms recognized a potential for legal problems and/or liability in conjunction with the millennial date change, several indicated that they did not anticipate legal or liability problems even if suppliers and servicers failed to make timely deliveries. Nonetheless, each firm surveyed indicated that it had received inquiries regarding its Y2K preparedness from regulators, creditors, and/or stockholders/investors.

None of the utilities surveyed had completed contingency plans, for potential eventualities associated with the millennial date change. Most of this effort will be done in conjunction with standing disaster recovery or emergency response plans.

One of the more interesting parts of the survey asked about the need for congressional action. Fifty percent responded that they needed the ability to share Y2K information and best management practices more freely among other companies without fear of l egal reprisal. Since the Justice Department (DOJ) addressed this issue last week, we assume the DOJ information has not been widely distributed. Twenty percent suggested the need for a liability limit, and 10 percent suggested a need to defer implementa tion of GISB regulations so that all available resources can be focused on Y2K remediation efforts.

Survey conducted by the staff of the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem.

# # #

[back] [home]
--------------67C85EC440D4-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 12:42:57 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA17293; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:40:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:40:04 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980918153133.00848c50 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:31:33 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Change the vortex-L rules? In-Reply-To: <199809181448_MC2-59DB-DE23 compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"32l0Y3.0.5E4.JSh0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22450 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 02:45 PM 9/18/98 -0400, Jed wrote: The tanks are advancing? Sorry, I can't hear you. I have a carrot in my ear! The carrot is in your BRAIN, Jed. Gather you can't stop your malicious diatribe EVER. Nor will you take it to vortex-b as previously requested. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 12:50:44 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA22003; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:48:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:48:32 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 14:58:30 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Newman's marketing plan Resent-Message-ID: <"2VU3G1.0.hN5.Fah0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22451 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >To: Vortex > >Evan Soule wrote: > > Joe has continually told me that individuals with "recommendations" > repeatedly choose not to call him and discuss their suggestions with him > _directly_. So, John, I am not giving you any "crap." This is Joe's > request. > >Evan, I hate to sound like a broken record or a know-it-all, but this is >business. Business! John Steck is a prospective customer. Joe must to treat >him with respect, and he must respond promptly. If Joe wants to discuss >suggestions _directly_, he must get his own e-mail account! No businessman in >the 1990s works without e-mail. You cannot make the rules. You do not tell a >busy engineer like Steck to drop what he is doing and place a long distance >call in the middle of the day to talk about something unrelated to his job. > >You don't treat people this way if you want to make money. Again, we are back >to the ABCs of marketing, and I am sorry to repeat this, but you people are >making every mistake in the book. y! I sincerely suggest that you & Joe should >go to the library and read a few introductory books on marketing and how to >deal with customers. Where do you think I learned this stuff? None of my >suggestions are original, profound, or difficult to master. > >One last time: I am no expert, but I'd be happy to offer what little help I >can. Feel free to call, or have Joe call after he reads my agenda. This is >off-topic so I will drop the discussion here. > >- Jed Dear Jed, Thank you for your business suggestions and opinion. Per your above statement, John does not have to "drop what he is doing and place a long distance call in the middle of the day to talk about something unrelated to his job." He can call Joe on the weekend, in the evening ... or not at all. Either of these options is certainly up to him. For John's benefit, I'll state here what I just posted directly to you: Joseph Newman has requested that interested people (and/or persons with an opinion regarding the technology and/or its application) such as yourself call him directly on the telephone. If you wish to this, fine. If not, that is your choice. I will not be faxing/mailing him your email because he has made it very clear to me that if someone wishes to relay information to him they can contact him on the telephone. It is not that I am "trying to give you a hard time" (although if you choose to interpret it that way, that is your choice; but I will state again that this is not my intent); I am honoring Joe's request. I apologize if I did not make my earlier statement clear. I will state it again: I do not wish to act as an intermediary. Best regards, Evan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 13:11:00 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA32022; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:08:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:08:30 -0700 Comments: ( Received on ftpbox.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com ) Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com Message-ID: <3602BDFE.37F31C87 css.mot.com> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:09:34 -0500 From: John Steck Organization: Motorola PCS - Rapid Tooling Applications X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Newman's marketing plan References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ig9tr1.0.7q7.zsh0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22452 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Evan Soule wrote: > Joe speaks to/with others for himself. And is it YOUR or OTHERS > suggestion(s)/recommendation(s) -- not mine. Joe has continually told me > that individuals with "recommendations" repeatedly choose not to call him > and discuss their suggestions with him _directly_. So, John, I am not > giving you any "crap." This is Joe's request. We can also jawbone amongst > ourselves ad infinitum on this List about such "recommendations". Fine. > Whatever. You can call him or you cannot call him directly -- frankly and > honestly (and not meaning to sound antagonistic about it) --- but I really > don't care one way or the other. Here is a suggestion. Print my message off and fax it to him. That is about as *direct* as it is going to get until Joe decides to get off his butt and start making product. Period. With all due respect to both you and Joe, I find it so humorously ironic that if there was anything even remotely antagonistic in my message that you would not have hesitated a moment to contact Joe and get his reply, BUT somehow *constructive* information can't seem to make it back to him..... hmmmm. If you "really don't care one way or the other", why do you WASTE OUR TIME even posting here? What is the point of ANY of us engaging in ANY conversation with you about ANYTHING regarding Newman? By you own admission, NOTHING will ever come of it. I just don't see the point. Frankly, I am ashamed of myself for even jumping into the conversation. I really should know better by now. My apologies to the group. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John E. Steck Senior Mechanical Engineer Rapid Tooling Applications Motorola, Libertyville, IL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces, It is not God who kills the children. Not Fate that butchers them or Destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It's us. Only us." - Rorschach From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 13:14:20 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA00603; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:11:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:11:25 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com ) Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com Message-ID: <3602BEAE.90F677A8 css.mot.com> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:12:30 -0500 From: John Steck Organization: Motorola PCS - Rapid Tooling Applications X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Newman's marketing plan References: <199809181448_MC2-59DB-DE22 compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"JD3jP2.0.H9.hvh0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22453 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > ....and don't give me that "call Joe" crap Evan. Tell him or don't tell > him, I don't care. You work for him not me . . . If he would rather > piss and moan about the inequities of life, respectfully count me out. > > I'd like to say the same thing, but I am the soul of tact and diplomacy, so I > wouldn't put it so indecorously. Admonishment taken. I have a tendency to be too blunt at times. My apologies to Evan. No disrespect intended. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John E. Steck Senior Mechanical Engineer Rapid Tooling Applications Motorola, Libertyville, IL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces, It is not God who kills the children. Not Fate that butchers them or Destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It's us. Only us." - Rorschach From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 13:14:28 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA00652; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:11:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:11:30 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:17:15 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: List software enhancement idea - the doghouse Resent-Message-ID: <"HsB-v.0.w9.mvh0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22454 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: It would be nice if list software could hold postings of selected individuals for moderation. Most individuals are not involved in flame wars. If some parties became volved in flamewars they could be put into the doghouse, i.e. their posts would be held up automatically for later review by a moderator. Just the delay alone might help cool things off. An alternative form of doghouse might be to automatically route the offending individuals posts to the unrestricted list. The morbidly curious could subscibe to both lists. 8^) Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 13:24:47 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA06025; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:22:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:22:13 -0700 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 16:19:27 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: [ON/OFF TOPIC] Dragon NaturallySpeaking Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809181622_MC2-59EF-5563 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"0P0K12.0.0U1.q3i0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22455 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex I type too much, and I love to play with new software, so when IBM and Dragon Systems introduce voice input programs I test 'em. So far they have been interesting but impractical. The lastest one, Dragon NaturallySpeaking Preferred, is the best I have seen. Here is a sample of output which is on-topic and recommended reading. I have trained it for a few special terms like "Pons and Fleischmann." It really does accept continuous speech. Methods of generating excess heat with the Pons and Fleischmann effect: rigorous and cost effective calorimetry, nuclear products analysis of the cathode and He analysis [It automatically changed "helium" to "He," and "sodium" to "Na"] by Ben Bush, Proc. ICCF7, p. 38 Abstract Calorimetry problems have dominated the excess heat measurements. There's little standardize Asian of methods employed by different laboratories in the performance characteristics of the various methods are store. We have settled upon high performance Calvet calorimetry as a cost-effective, but highly reliable message for measuring excess heat. A 3 X 3 X 9cm device provides a dynamic range from Billy wants to hundreds of wants (depending on water bath capacity). [COMICAL, but not as far off as it sounds. A little more training is called for. It should be:] Calorimetric problems have dominated the excess heat measurements. There's little standardization of methods employed by different laboratories and the performance characteristics of the various methods are obscure. We have settled upon high performance Calvet calorimetry as a cost-effective, but highly reliable message for measuring excess heat. A 3 X 3 X 9cm [I TYPED "3 X . . ." DIRECTLY] device provides a dynamic range from milliwatts [I LIKE "BILLY WANTS"] to hundreds of watts (depending on water bath capacity). [Next Page] Figure 1:ski Magic of high-performance Calvet calorimetry the device consists of a contiguous thermal flux transducer envelope. The thermal flux transducer is sense thermal flux as the sum of the voltage is set up across differential mode for couples, as shown. The several couples from couples thermocouples thermocouples [TRAINED "THERMOCOUPLES"] are placed across a thoroughly insulated layer so that heat flowing through the thermal flux transducer creates a difference in the EMS E. M. F.'s (voltage) of the inside and outside thermocouples of each differential pair. There are over a hundred differential from a couple payers per square inch of the Seebeck (TM) from all forks transducer's, so that the series in some voltage of all the differential mode thermocouples in the contiguous thermal flux transducer envelope give a very good linear representation of all the formal flux; as a single voltage. Figure 1: Schematic of high-performance Calvet calorimeter. [MY FAULT, I SHOULD HAVE SAID "PERIOD."] The device consists of a contiguous thermal flux transducer envelope. The thermal flux transducers sense thermal flux as the sum of the voltage set up across differential mode thermocouples, as shown. The several thermocouples are placed across a thoroughly insulated layer so that heat flowing through the thermal flux transducer creates a difference in the emf's (voltage) of the inside and outside thermocouples of each differential pair. There are over a hundred differential thermocouple pairs per square inch of the Seebeck (TM) thermal flux transducers, so that the series sum voltage of all the differential mode thermocouples in the contiguous thermal flux transducer envelope give a very good linear representation of all the formal flux; [sic] as a single voltage. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 13:25:45 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA07080; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:24:01 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:24:01 -0700 Message-Id: <199809182024.PAA12404 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:23:42 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: Clarke-Hess PLUS battery test Resent-Message-ID: <"uyNFe1.0.Gk1.V5i0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22456 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >>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) > >Another update: > >Joe's motor is now drawing only 100 milliamps while the rpms remain c. 100; >the motor still cannot be 'choked down' and the current does not go up when >such an attempt is made. > >ERS ***{If that isn't anomalous, then Bill Clinton is an honest man! Twenty four 6 volt batteries in series give an input of 144 volts. P = EI = 144(.1) = 14.4 watts. Since it is also true that P = RT, we have (14.4/746)(550) = [2pi(100)/60] T, and it follows that T = 1.014 ft-lbs, assuming 100% efficiency for the motor. Assuming a more normal 85%, we get a torque of (.85)(1.014) = .86 ft-lbs! A baby could double such a torque by gripping the shaft, thereby producing an obvious jump in power consumption. If the current really, truly does not increase, then this looks to me like smoking gun proof of "over unity" operation. And that, in turn, means that if Jed isn't running down the runway, suitcase in hand, to catch the late flight to Phoenix (or wherever Newman is at the moment), then he, Jed, should be immediately defrocked as a science journalist! :-) --Mitchell Jones}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 13:53:15 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA21109; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:51:12 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:51:12 -0700 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:52:11 -0700 (MST) From: Lynn Kurtz Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Newman's marketing plan In-reply-to: <3602BEAE.90F677A8 css.mot.com> X-Sender: kurtz general1.asu.edu To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"I_L5a.0.X95.-Ui0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22457 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 18 Sep 1998, John Steck wrote: > Jed Rothwell wrote: > > ....and don't give me that "call Joe" crap Evan. Tell him or don't > > tell him, I don't care. You work for him not me . . . If he would rather > > piss and moan about the inequities of life, respectfully count me out. > > > > I'd like to say the same thing, but I am the soul of tact and diplomacy, > > so I wouldn't put it so indecorously. > > Admonishment taken. I have a tendency to be too blunt at times. My apologies > to Evan. No disrespect intended. > > -- Admonishment? I don't think so John. I will bet you a dollar against my choice of doughnut. That was a tongue-in-cheek comment from Jed if I ever saw one! Personally, I thought you were quite calm and restrained. --Lynn From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 14:06:25 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA23979; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:57:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:57:29 -0700 Message-Id: <199809182057.PAA13090 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:56:43 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Newman's marketing plan Resent-Message-ID: <"E79w11.0.Qs5.tai0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22458 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >>To: Vortex >> >>Evan Soule wrote: >> >> Joe has continually told me that individuals with "recommendations" >> repeatedly choose not to call him and discuss their suggestions with him >> _directly_. So, John, I am not giving you any "crap." This is Joe's >> request. >> >>Evan, I hate to sound like a broken record or a know-it-all, but this is >>business. Business! John Steck is a prospective customer. Joe must to treat >>him with respect, and he must respond promptly. If Joe wants to discuss >>suggestions _directly_, he must get his own e-mail account! No businessman in >>the 1990s works without e-mail. You cannot make the rules. You do not tell a >>busy engineer like Steck to drop what he is doing and place a long distance >>call in the middle of the day to talk about something unrelated to his job. >> >>You don't treat people this way if you want to make money. Again, we are back >>to the ABCs of marketing, and I am sorry to repeat this, but you people are >>making every mistake in the book. y! I sincerely suggest that you & Joe should >>go to the library and read a few introductory books on marketing and how to >>deal with customers. Where do you think I learned this stuff? None of my >>suggestions are original, profound, or difficult to master. >> >>One last time: I am no expert, but I'd be happy to offer what little help I >>can. Feel free to call, or have Joe call after he reads my agenda. This is >>off-topic so I will drop the discussion here. >> >>- Jed > >Dear Jed, > >Thank you for your business suggestions and opinion. > >Per your above statement, John does not have to "drop what he is doing and >place a long distance call in the middle of the day to talk about something >unrelated to his job." He can call Joe on the weekend, in the evening ... >or not at all. Either of these options is certainly up to him. > >For John's benefit, I'll state here what I just posted directly to you: > >Joseph Newman has requested that interested people (and/or persons with an >opinion regarding the technology and/or its application) such as yourself >call him directly on the telephone. If you wish to this, fine. If not, >that is your choice. I will not be faxing/mailing him your email because >he has made it very clear to me that if someone wishes to relay information >to him they can contact him on the telephone. It is not that I am "trying >to give you a hard time" (although if you choose to interpret it that way, >that is your choice; but I will state again that this is not my intent); I >am honoring Joe's request. > >I apologize if I did not make my earlier statement clear. I will state it >again: I do not wish to act as an intermediary. > >Best regards, > >Evan ***{It is too bad that Newman chooses to cut himself off from input in this way. Nevertheless, if that is the factual state of affairs, then it behooves those who want to deal with him to contact him themselves, despite any trepidation they may feel due to his idiosyncratic reputation. If Joe's motor really works, he is simply too important to be permitted to fail, despite his eccentricities. If it is necessary to take him by the hand and lead him like a child, then somehow, some way, it simply will have to be done. --Mitchell Jones}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 14:07:14 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA24216; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:58:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:58:00 -0700 Message-Id: <199809182057.PAA13093 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:56:45 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Newman's marketing plan Resent-Message-ID: <"Jxmnr1.0.Iw5.Nbi0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22459 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Evan Soule wrote: >> Joe speaks to/with others for himself. And is it YOUR or OTHERS >> suggestion(s)/recommendation(s) -- not mine. Joe has continually told me >> that individuals with "recommendations" repeatedly choose not to call him >> and discuss their suggestions with him _directly_. So, John, I am not >> giving you any "crap." This is Joe's request. We can also jawbone amongst >> ourselves ad infinitum on this List about such "recommendations". Fine. >> Whatever. You can call him or you cannot call him directly -- frankly and >> honestly (and not meaning to sound antagonistic about it) --- but I really >> don't care one way or the other. > >Here is a suggestion. Print my message off and fax it to him. That is about >as >*direct* as it is going to get until Joe decides to get off his butt and start >making product. Period. > >With all due respect to both you and Joe, I find it so humorously ironic that >if >there was anything even remotely antagonistic in my message that you would not >have hesitated a moment to contact Joe and get his reply, BUT somehow >*constructive* information can't seem to make it back to him..... hmmmm. > >If you "really don't care one way or the other", why do you WASTE OUR TIME even >posting here? What is the point of ANY of us engaging in ANY conversation with >you about ANYTHING regarding Newman? By you own admission, NOTHING will ever >come of it. I just don't see the point. > >Frankly, I am ashamed of myself for even jumping into the conversation. I >really should know better by now. My apologies to the group. ***{John, if Newman's motor works, then nothing else matters. All this stuff about who makes the first move and who caters to whom is just interpersonal bullshit, of no more significance than a rooster fluffing his feathers or the sound of the wind blowing. Think about it. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > > >-- > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > John E. Steck > Senior Mechanical Engineer > Rapid Tooling Applications > Motorola, Libertyville, IL > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > "This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces, > It is not God who kills the children. Not Fate that butchers them or > Destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It's us. Only us." - Rorschach > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 14:14:25 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA13326; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 14:07:12 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 14:07:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809182057.PAA13087 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:56:41 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Newman's marketing plan Resent-Message-ID: <"OnfUP1.0.8G3.-ji0s" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22461 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >To: Vortex > >Evan Soule wrote: > > Joe has continually told me that individuals with "recommendations" > repeatedly choose not to call him and discuss their suggestions with him > _directly_. So, John, I am not giving you any "crap." This is Joe's > request. > >Evan, I hate to sound like a broken record or a know-it-all, but this is >business. Business! John Steck is a prospective customer. Joe must to treat >him with respect, and he must respond promptly. If Joe wants to discuss >suggestions _directly_, he must get his own e-mail account! No businessman in >the 1990s works without e-mail. You cannot make the rules. You do not tell a >busy engineer like Steck to drop what he is doing and place a long distance >call in the middle of the day to talk about something unrelated to his job. > >You don't treat people this way if you want to make money. Again, we are back >to the ABCs of marketing, and I am sorry to repeat this, but you people are >making every mistake in the book. y! I sincerely suggest that you & Joe should >go to the library and read a few introductory books on marketing and how to >deal with customers. Where do you think I learned this stuff? None of my >suggestions are original, profound, or difficult to master. > >One last time: I am no expert, but I'd be happy to offer what little help I >can. Feel free to call, or have Joe call after he reads my agenda. This is >off-topic so I will drop the discussion here. > >- Jed ***{I beg to differ. This is not off topic at all. The reasonable assumption is that members of this group are--correct me if I am wrong--interested in "over unity" devices because, ultimately, they would like to obtain and use such devices. It therefore seems to follow that all matters which will further that purpose are of legitimate interest here. Thus it is not merely relevant to post information which will assist us in determining whether Joe's motor really works, but it is also relevant to post information which will assist us in understanding why his motor isn't currently available, and information which will increase the likelihood that it someday *will* be available. I, for one, am intensely interested in this discussion of marketing, and I do *not* consider it to be off topic, so long as it continues to be tied directly to "over unity" devices. --Mitchell Jones}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 14:13:19 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA24361; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:58:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:58:35 -0700 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:59:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809182059.NAA23183 franc.ucdavis.edu> X-Sender: szdanq blue.ucdavis.edu (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Dan Quickert Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Newman's marketing plan Resent-Message-ID: <"bHgST1.0.Yy5.xbi0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22460 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John Steck wrote: >Frankly, I am ashamed of myself for even jumping into the conversation. I >really should know better by now. My apologies to the group. Err... wasn't Newman discussion banished more than a year ago? John, I suggest that for the bandwidth waste you have caused, you be flogged with a 100cm section of flexible N-guage railroad track lined with Neodymium magnets (ouch... that smots! ;-) Oh well, Newman's a bit more entertaining (and certainly more tantalizing) than the recent [anti scientific-dogma] dogma being posted. Protons? What protons? We don't have no protons. We don't have to show you no stinkin' protons! (then just wave, okay?) Your posts are usually among the most reasonable and civil, John. No apologies necessary. Dan Quickert From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 14:21:37 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA29980; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 14:10:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 14:10:11 -0700 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 14:11:02 -0700 (MST) From: Lynn Kurtz Subject: Re: Clarke-Hess PLUS battery test In-reply-to: <199809182024.PAA12404 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: kurtz general1.asu.edu To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"c9SJT2.0.GK7.omi0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22462 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 18 Sep 1998, Mitchell Jones wrote: > And that, in turn, means that > if Jed isn't running down the runway, suitcase in hand, to catch the late > flight to Phoenix (or wherever Newman is at the moment),........ > > > You mean like the "30 or so" people from "all over the world" that did that very thing to see the demo in Sun City? Let me think about this for a second. See, I have this motor here running off a battery, and I simply can't choke it down or make it draw more current. I think my next step is to try to choke it down by welding it to a generator rotor. So now I am powering some light bulbs, way too many light bulbs for so long for such a little battery. I think my next stop might be the 5pm news on TV. I can hardly think of anything I could do to PREVENT becoming very wealthy very quickly. Am I missing something? --Lynn From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 14:25:34 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA31235; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 14:13:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 14:13:41 -0700 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 17:10:53 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: The soul of tact?!? Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809181714_MC2-59F3-8F2A compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"ninb73.0.xd7.4qi0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22463 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex I can't resist! John Steck writes: >I'd like to say the same thing, but I am the soul of tact and >diplomacy, so I wouldn't put it so indecorously. Admonishment taken. I have a tendency to be too blunt at times. My apologies to Evan. No disrespect intended. HA HA HA! That was NOT an admonishment, John. And I am NOT the soul of tact and diplomacy, or "the soul of packed in the policy" as Dragon NatSpeak puts it. You are 100% correct that it's crazy for Soule to post here, engage in conversation, elicit expert opinion, and then tell us he will not communicate with Newman. (ROLF! Carried away with mirth!) - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 14:29:59 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA00448; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 14:18:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 14:18:55 -0700 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 17:18:06 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Newman's marketing plan Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809181719_MC2-59F3-8FEF compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"3DkFd2.0.t6._ui0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22465 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Dan Q. writes: John, I suggest that for the bandwidth waste you have caused, you be flogged with a 100cm section of flexible N-guage railroad track lined with Neodymium magnets (ouch... that smots! ;-) ROLF! Oh, aren't we in good form today! That's hysterical!!! - Jed (Carried away with Mirth) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 14:31:31 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA00289; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 14:18:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 14:18:15 -0700 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 17:18:01 -0400 From: Soo Subject: Re: Change the vortex-L rules? Sender: Soo To: "INTERNET:vortex-l eskimo.com" Message-ID: <199809181718_MC2-59F2-4C3F compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id OAA00214 Resent-Message-ID: <"fO1WP2.0.64.Nui0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22464 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Well at least it'll be dangling in front of the sociably acceptable end of the donkey. < Nor will you take it to vortex-b as previously requested.> If one is responding to a daft comment on vortex-a it's only polite to reply therein. I reckon Bill ought to invent a message pooper-scooper. Any comment containing anything considered politically incorrect ought to be zapped out automatically to the "b" list......but do we trust Bill to program such a device objectively.............I doubt even he is safe from inane rants and complaints of partisanship We could have a "jobbie-wheeker"....like Bill Connolly mentions in his act. A "jobbie" is Scots for a turd and "wheeker" is just what it sounds like.....it wheeks turds out the window at high speed. Connolly suggests it is an integral component in aircraft loos. You do the jobbie and the plane wheeks it out. He runs the whole scenario in a song..............You eat the fish on the airplane; you expel the "jobbie", the plane wheeks it out over the North Atlantic; a fish eats it up; the fisherman catches the fish.....you eat the fish on the airplane........ I think that's life, Mitch. - Soo From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 14:48:02 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA14316; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 14:44:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 14:44:18 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980918173508.0084e100 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 17:35:08 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Change the vortex-L rules? In-Reply-To: <199809181718_MC2-59F2-4C3F compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"LtmFG3.0.YV3.nGj0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22466 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 05:18 PM 9/18/98 -0400, Soo wrote: > > >Well at least it'll be dangling in front of the sociably acceptable end of >the donkey. Don't think Jed is a donkey; but he should consider trying to post more science, and less barbs at working individuals. mm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 15:03:47 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA21954; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:00:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:00:00 -0700 Message-ID: <00f001bde34f$aa1d2440$d4b4bfa8 default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Cc: "George" Subject: Re; High-Field ZPE Pumping & The Newman Motor Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:59:00 -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: <"oEg0I1.0.mM5.TVj0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22467 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex The maximum breakdown stress between electrodes in air is 3E6 volts/meter = V/R where R is the radius of the "wires". With insulated magnet wire seeing 2,000 volts or more, it be that the "varnish" material is doing the ZPE Pumping. If this is the case, "induction" coils wound from small diameter magnet wire and pulsed may do the ZPE/ou thing. A garden variety 12-volt automotive ignition coil costs about $10.00. :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 15:08:07 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA24131; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:04:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:04:51 -0700 Message-ID: <00fe01bde350$58581ba0$d4b4bfa8 default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Clarke-Hess PLUS battery test Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 16:04:39 -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: <"9bQ3l1.0.mu5.0aj0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22468 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Lynn Kurtz To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Friday, September 18, 1998 3:18 PM Subject: Re: Clarke-Hess PLUS battery test Lynn Kurtz Wrote: > > >On Fri, 18 Sep 1998, Mitchell Jones wrote: > >> And that, in turn, means that >> if Jed isn't running down the runway, suitcase in hand, to catch the late >> flight to Phoenix (or wherever Newman is at the moment),........ >> >> >> > >You mean like the "30 or so" people from "all over the world" that did that >very thing to see the demo in Sun City? > >Let me think about this for a second. See, I have this motor here running off >a battery, and I simply can't choke it down or make it draw more current. I >think my next step is to try to choke it down by welding it to a generator >rotor. So now I am powering some light bulbs, way too many light bulbs for so >long for such a little battery. I think my next stop might be the 5pm news on >TV. I can hardly think of anything I could do to PREVENT becoming very wealthy >very quickly. > >Am I missing something? A carrot on stick,perhaps? :-) FJS >--Lynn > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 15:11:50 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA27836; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:09:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:09:42 -0700 Message-ID: <011901bde351$069c3ac0$d4b4bfa8 default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Newman's marketing plan Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 16:09:31 -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: <"1wXhU.0.io6.aej0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22469 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Dan Quickert To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Friday, September 18, 1998 3:09 PM Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Newman's marketing plan You hurt to the Quick, Dan, PROTONS IS IN THE VARNISH, SMOT-ASS! :-) FJS Dan Quickert wrote: >John Steck wrote: > >>Frankly, I am ashamed of myself for even jumping into the conversation. I >>really should know better by now. My apologies to the group. > > >Err... wasn't Newman discussion banished more than a year ago? >John, I suggest that for the bandwidth waste you have caused, you be flogged >with a 100cm section of flexible N-guage railroad track lined with Neodymium >magnets (ouch... that smots! ;-) > >Oh well, Newman's a bit more entertaining (and certainly more tantalizing) >than the recent [anti scientific-dogma] dogma being posted. Protons? What >protons? We don't have no protons. We don't have to show you no stinkin' >protons! (then just wave, okay?) > >Your posts are usually among the most reasonable and civil, John. No >apologies necessary. > >Dan Quickert > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 15:18:06 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA31132; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:16:14 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:16:14 -0700 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 18:16:08 -0400 From: Soo Subject: Re: Change the vortex-L rules? Sender: Soo To: "INTERNET:vortex-l eskimo.com" Message-ID: <199809181816_MC2-59F3-1087 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id PAA31105 Resent-Message-ID: <"OgOA92.0.Ic7.jkj0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22470 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: < Don't think Jed is a donkey> That wasn't quite the intended implication......but 4 out of 10 for creative misinterpretation. < he should consider trying to post more science, and less barbs at working individuals. > You don't mean at all that he should post "more science".....Jed posts as much science hereabouts as anyone, and his posts are tempered with a commentary style that I, for one, wish I could emulate so eloquently. If that wasn't the case he wouldn't have apparently rattled your cage so violently. Carry on being a "working individual"........it's clearly what you're best at. Soo From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 15:25:37 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA02502; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:23:57 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:23:57 -0700 Message-Id: <199809182224.RAA15212 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 17:23:50 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: Clarke-Hess PLUS battery test Resent-Message-ID: <"V5_6O.0.0d.zrj0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22471 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >On Fri, 18 Sep 1998, Mitchell Jones wrote: > >> And that, in turn, means that >> if Jed isn't running down the runway, suitcase in hand, to catch the late >> flight to Phoenix (or wherever Newman is at the moment),........ >> >> >> > >You mean like the "30 or so" people from "all over the world" that did that >very thing to see the demo in Sun City? > >Let me think about this for a second. See, I have this motor here running off >a battery, and I simply can't choke it down or make it draw more current. I >think my next step is to try to choke it down by welding it to a generator >rotor. So now I am powering some light bulbs, way too many light bulbs for so >long for such a little battery. I think my next stop might be the 5pm news on >TV. I can hardly think of anything I could do to PREVENT becoming very wealthy >very quickly. > >Am I missing something? > >--Lynn ***{Lynn, I don't know whether Newman is a certifiable nutter or an idiosyncratic genius, and so I am open to either possibility. What you are missing is simply the fact that you don't know, either. --Mitchell Jones}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 15:26:18 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA02592; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:24:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:24:07 -0700 Message-Id: <199809182224.RAA15215 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 17:23:51 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: The soul of tact?!? Resent-Message-ID: <"SiWti3.0.Ce.6sj0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22472 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >To: Vortex > >I can't resist! John Steck writes: > > >I'd like to say the same thing, but I am the soul of tact and > >diplomacy, so I wouldn't put it so indecorously. > > Admonishment taken. I have a tendency to be too blunt at times. My > apologies to Evan. No disrespect intended. > >HA HA HA! That was NOT an admonishment, John. And I am NOT the soul of tact >and diplomacy, or "the soul of packed in the policy" as Dragon NatSpeak puts >it. You are 100% correct that it's crazy for Soule to post here, engage in >conversation, elicit expert opinion, and then tell us he will not communicate >with Newman. (ROLF! Carried away with mirth!) > >- Jed ***{What if Newman's motor works, Jed? When you cease laughing, I suggest you think about it. Do you really want to get caught up in lampooning his idiosyncrasies and the burdens he imposes on his friends, before you have a satisfactory answer to that question? --Mitchell Jones}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 15:26:37 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA03004; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:24:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:24:18 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980918181555.0084ca60 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 18:15:55 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Change the vortex-L rules? In-Reply-To: <199809181816_MC2-59F3-1087 compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"47JcX.0.Uk.Hsj0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22473 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 06:16 PM 9/18/98 -0400, Soo wrote: >< Don't think Jed is a donkey> > >That wasn't quite the intended implication......but 4 out of 10 for >creative misinterpretation. Give yourself 7 out of 10, Soo. >< he should consider trying to post more science, and less barbs at working >individuals. > > >You don't mean at all that he should post "more science".....Jed posts as >much science hereabouts as anyone, and his posts are tempered with a >commentary style that I, for one, wish I could emulate so eloquently. If >that wasn't the case he wouldn't have apparently rattled your cage so >violently. > Au contraire. Science does NOT involve attacking researchers, alive and dead. THAT is what has been bothersome about your partner's, Jed's, comments. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 15:37:17 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA10876; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:34:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:34:55 -0700 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 18:35:20 -0400 From: Soo Subject: Re: Change the vortex-L rules? Sender: Soo To: "INTERNET:vortex-l eskimo.com" Message-ID: <199809181835_MC2-59F8-31D5 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id PAA10842 Resent-Message-ID: <"9M8KZ1.0.if2.E0k0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22474 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: < Give yourself 7 out of 10, Soo.> I could never take less than the max., dear. < Science does NOT involve attacking researchers, alive and dead.> Tell the science fraternity that. It seems to me that when they come upon something they don't like, or can't explain, they attack the personality proposing the theory, rather than the theory itself. - Soo From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 15:39:08 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA12490; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:36:44 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:36:44 -0700 Comments: ( Received on ftpbox.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com ) Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com Message-ID: <3602E0A6.83352183 css.mot.com> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 17:37:26 -0500 From: John Steck Organization: Motorola PCS - Rapid Tooling Applications X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Newman's marketing plan References: <199809182059.NAA23183 franc.ucdavis.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"WILIs.0.d23.v1k0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22475 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dan Quickert wrote: > ouch... that smots! ;-) Thanks for the much needed laugh Dan. LOL > Your posts are usually among the most reasonable and civil, John. No > apologies necessary. Very kind of you to say but the apology still stands. 8^) -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John E. Steck Senior Mechanical Engineer Rapid Tooling Applications Motorola, Libertyville, IL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces, It is not God who kills the children. Not Fate that butchers them or Destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It's us. Only us." - Rorschach From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 16:11:09 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA30039; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 16:04:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 16:04:37 -0700 Comments: ( Received on ftpbox.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com ) Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com Message-ID: <3602E745.4C0FC2F7 css.mot.com> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 18:05:41 -0500 From: John Steck Organization: Motorola PCS - Rapid Tooling Applications X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Newman's marketing plan References: <199809182057.PAA13087 smtp.jump.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"AAuaf3.0.CL7.3Sk0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22476 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mitchell Jones wrote: > ***{I beg to differ. This is not off topic at all. The reasonable > assumption is that members of this group are--correct me if I am > wrong--interested in "over unity" devices because, ultimately, they would > like to obtain and use such devices. It therefore seems to follow that all > matters which will further that purpose are of legitimate interest here. > Thus it is not merely relevant to post information which will assist us in > determining whether Joe's motor really works, but it is also relevant to > post information which will assist us in understanding why his motor isn't > currently available, and information which will increase the likelihood > that it someday *will* be available. I, for one, am intensely interested in > this discussion of marketing, and I do *not* consider it to be off topic, > so long as it continues to be tied directly to "over unity" devices. > --Mitchell Jones}*** > ***{It is too bad that Newman chooses to cut himself off from input in this > way. Nevertheless, if that is the factual state of affairs, then it > behooves those who want to deal with him to contact him themselves, despite > any trepidation they may feel due to his idiosyncratic reputation. If Joe's > motor really works, he is simply too important to be permitted to fail, > despite his eccentricities. If it is necessary to take him by the hand and > lead him like a child, then somehow, some way, it simply will have to be > done. --Mitchell Jones}*** Please understand this thread has been this unproductive on Vortex-L since I first subscribed over two years ago. All I can suggest is that you go read the archives if you wish to reach the level of frustration of many here. Your points and positions are valid, logical, and have already stated several time by many here, including myself. I am sorry to say, based on past experience, your willingness to suspend doubt is misplaced. You are welcome to find out for yourself though.... 8^) -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John E. Steck Senior Mechanical Engineer Rapid Tooling Applications Motorola, Libertyville, IL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces, It is not God who kills the children. Not Fate that butchers them or Destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It's us. Only us." - Rorschach From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 16:11:40 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA32727; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 16:08:08 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 16:08:08 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980918185936.00844870 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 18:59:36 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Change the vortex-L rules? In-Reply-To: <199809181835_MC2-59F8-31D5 compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"XizZ71.0.A_7.MVk0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22477 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 06:35 PM 9/18/98 -0400, Soo wrote: >< Give yourself 7 out of 10, Soo.> > >I could never take less than the max., dear. > >< Science does NOT involve attacking >researchers, alive and dead.> > >Tell the science fraternity that. It seems to me that when they come upon >something they don't like, or can't explain, they attack the personality >proposing the theory, rather than the theory itself. Good point Soo, but it was Jed who attacked people who WORK in the field, both alive and dead. Real scientists DON'T do that. Hope that helps Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 16:59:56 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA17375; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 16:57:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 16:57:32 -0700 From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Clarke-Hess PLUS battery test Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 23:58:38 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3604f389.240855567 mail-hub> References: <3.0.1.32.19980918083910.00dabc24@mail.eden.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980918083910.00dabc24 mail.eden.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"4veEa2.0.7F4.gDl0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22479 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:39:10 -0500, Scott Little wrote: >At 07:53 9/18/98 GMT, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > >>Scott I get nearer to 135 ft-lb than 21 (i.e. 183 newton*m). Are you >>sure your calculation is correct? > >Yes. You forgot to multiply 85 rpm by 2*PI to convert it to >radians/minute. Easy mistake....I've made it zillions of times myself. [snip] You are correct. Thanks for the lesson. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 16:59:58 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA17266; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 16:57:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 16:57:20 -0700 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 16:59:17 -0700 From: Lynn Kurtz Subject: Re: Clarke-Hess PLUS battery test In-reply-to: <199809182224.RAA15212 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: kurtz imap2.asu.edu (Unverified) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <199809182358.QAA23523 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: <"YvsEp.0.KD4.SDl0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22478 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 05:23 PM 9/18/98 -0600, you wrote: >>On Fri, 18 Sep 1998, Mitchell Jones wrote: >***{Lynn, I don't know whether Newman is a certifiable nutter or an >idiosyncratic genius, and so I am open to either possibility. What you are >missing is simply the fact that you don't know, either. --Mitchell >Jones}*** > Well, no Mitchell, you are wrong. I am not missing that fact. It is good to keep an open mind. But to quote someone from SPF long ago (I'm sorry, I don't recall the author, but I like the quote), "you don't need to keep your mind so open that your brains fall out." Given Newman's track record, the "genius" part doesn't seem too likely to me. When (if) Little and Puthoff's lab come out with a positive result with the Newman motor, that will be BIG news and I will change my mind. Until then, well, like I was thinking, why would anyone proceed like they are if they actually have what they claim? As Spock would say, "It's not logical!". --Lynn From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 17:10:57 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA23190; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 17:09:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 17:09:37 -0700 Message-Id: <199809190010.TAA16401 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 19:09:35 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Newman's marketing plan Resent-Message-ID: <"7qXOR1.0.Fg5.0Pl0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22480 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Mitchell Jones wrote: >> ***{I beg to differ. This is not off topic at all. The reasonable >> assumption is that members of this group are--correct me if I am >> wrong--interested in "over unity" devices because, ultimately, they would >> like to obtain and use such devices. It therefore seems to follow that all >> matters which will further that purpose are of legitimate interest here. >> Thus it is not merely relevant to post information which will assist us in >> determining whether Joe's motor really works, but it is also relevant to >> post information which will assist us in understanding why his motor isn't >> currently available, and information which will increase the likelihood >> that it someday *will* be available. I, for one, am intensely interested in >> this discussion of marketing, and I do *not* consider it to be off topic, >> so long as it continues to be tied directly to "over unity" devices. >> --Mitchell Jones}*** > >> ***{It is too bad that Newman chooses to cut himself off from input in this >> way. Nevertheless, if that is the factual state of affairs, then it >> behooves those who want to deal with him to contact him themselves, despite >> any trepidation they may feel due to his idiosyncratic reputation. If Joe's >> motor really works, he is simply too important to be permitted to fail, >> despite his eccentricities. If it is necessary to take him by the hand and >> lead him like a child, then somehow, some way, it simply will have to be >> done. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >Please understand this thread has been this unproductive on Vortex-L since I >first subscribed over two years ago. All I can suggest is that you go read the >archives if you wish to reach the level of frustration of many here. Your >points and positions are valid, logical, and have already stated several time >by >many here, including myself. I am sorry to say, based on past experience, your >willingness to suspend doubt is misplaced. You are welcome to find out for >yourself though.... 8^) ***{Who, me? I ain't suspending no steenking doubt! :-) Seriously: note the "if's" in my comments, above. What they prove is that I am not at all inclined to "suspend doubt," as you put it. But, to repeat, *if* his motor works, then the interpersonal niceties should be suspended. Forget that Joe is in *business* and that, therefore, he is somehow *morally obligated* to come to the *almighty customer* on bended knee and plead piteously for a sale. He ain't buying it, and that's that. So if the motor is real, and if you want one, you will simply have to play the game by Newman's rules. The logical first step, therefore, is for someone to head out to Newman's shop with some calibrated instruments, and ask if he will permit some simple tests to verify the claim that the present incarnation of his motor pulls .1 amp at 144 volts at a steady 100 rpm, even when you increase the load on the shaft by a large multiple. That should be easy enough to accomplish, shouldn't it? After all, didn't he just attempt a public demo? Surely he would cooperate with such a seemingly simple request. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > >-- > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > John E. Steck > Senior Mechanical Engineer > Rapid Tooling Applications > Motorola, Libertyville, IL > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > "This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces, > It is not God who kills the children. Not Fate that butchers them or > Destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It's us. Only us." - Rorschach > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 19:24:35 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA20470; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 19:23:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 19:23:20 -0700 From: "R. Wormus" Reply-To: "R. Wormus" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 20:24:03 -0600 Message-ID: X-Mailer: YAM 2.0 Preview5 - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck - http://www.yam.ch Organization: LOCK+LOAD Subject: OFF-SBJ: solution to Y2K power problem (fwd) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"1Z6k.0.m_4.NMn0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22481 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Vortexians, Apparently Newmans demonstration impressed some people. Ron *** Forwarded message, originally written by Tom Miller milcomark webwizzards.com on 18-Sep-98 *** Hi, In light of the potential problem of the power grid failure during the Y2K crisis, I have found a "powerful" antidote!!! I flew out to Phoenix last weekend and saw Joseph Newman, who has been perfecting a device, using his "matter-to-energy" theory, that will power your home, completely, without requiring any other power source than a series of 6-volt dry cells and these are only there to kick the unit off and get it turning!! A standard UL-approved generator is attached to the shaft of his device and this device is simple enough that it can be turned out in quantities quickly. If you're interested, you can find his Web site at http://www.josephnewman.com He was not able to demonstrate his production prototype on Saturday because the unit was "sabotaged" by the company that was supposed to produce the first units. I could not stay over the weekend, but many of those attending the meeting did so. An e-mail message has been received from one of those who stayed over and he was ecstatic about the demonstrate. He said that they could not "stall" the device, no matter what they tried. And the current from the batteries did not exceed 2 amps (a total of 288 watts!!!). Normally, an electric motor, when you attempt to stall it, it will draw excessive amps and burn itself up---his unit didn't even get warm!!! He is going into production this month and he expects to sell the unit for around $6000. Right now, he is looking for distributors for the device, to sell them around the world. I, for one, plan to buy one from him, and, if I had the money for a distributorship, I would buy one right now! This man is a genius!!! And you can count on him doing what he says he will do! Go to his Web site and read to your heart's content! All the best in the Lord, Tom Miller milcomark webwizzards.com *** End of forwarded message *** Sincerely, From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 19:42:42 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA25555; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 19:39:57 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 19:39:57 -0700 X-Sender: josephnewman earthlink.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 21:49:57 -0600 To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Give me a break! -- O.K. Take a break! Resent-Message-ID: <"JU0vT.0.CF6.ybn0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22483 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >To: Evan Soule >INTERNET:josephnewman earthlink.net > >Oh give me a break, Evan! You are full of crap: Dear Jed, Thanks for your note. Actually, I had a pretty good bowel movement this morning and a very late and light lunch, so I can conclusive state that your claim above is incorrect. I could also claim that you, too, are "replete with feces," but since we have not had the opportunity to discuss your own personal bowel habits today I cannot honestly and conclusively say whether you are or or not "full of crap." Someone just wrote me privately and suggested that you seemed to be 'becoming a bit upset -- even losing your cool' -- but I think it is really only the nature of email that everyone (you, me, John, etc.) may read into words or phrases an interpretation that may not be intended by the writer. > > It is not that I am "trying to give you a hard time" (although if you > choose to interpret it that way . . . > >Interpret hell! You *are* giving me a hard time! You expect me to screw >around with printers, envelopes, stamps, you want me to schlepp to the >postbox, you want me to pay for phone calls so I can help Joe! Do him a favor >and pay for it too?!? If you don't want my help and you do not want >suggestions stop posting to Vortex. No doubt if our Leader Bill was here on the List he would say that "he feels your pain." I very sorry that you feel I'm "giving you a hard time." This is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. Of course, I would disagree with your opinion, but this is just my opinion. Actually, I don't expect you to "screw around" with anything in particular --- what you choose to "screw" is entirely up to you. I don't recall, Jed, where I ever solicited your help. I have made informational posts to the List. You have been pleasant enough to offer your "advice" and I have suggested that you share this advice directly with Joseph Newman --- assuming there is something you wish to offer and something he wishes to receive. No doubt a discussion between the two of you would resolve this question fairly rapidly. But if you wish to have an engaging discussion about in on the List, that's your choice. > > > I am honoring Joe's request. > >To hell with Joe's request. Who does he think he is, anyway? He expects people >to do him favors for nothing? He'll never earn a dime if he don't learn to >treat the public right. You guys are not running a business, you are running >your mouths, you are running an ego trip. This is not about business, or >money, or opportunity, it's about Joe and you lording over people, >pontificating with this holier-than-thou "if you choose to interpret it that >way, that is your choice" GARBAGE. I ask you: is that any way to talk to man >who has offered you $10,000 for your machine, in good faith? Is that how you >treat prospects? Good grief! When you screw people you should at least learn >to be polite about it. You could say: "I am sorry to put you to the trouble, >but could you please communicate with Joe directly . . ." Steck has you >pegged: Thanks again for your thoughtful comments. Actually since Joe does not even know of your existence except to the extent of your earlier mutual, short telephone discussion, I would say that Joe expects nothing from you. You seem to hold the opinion that you are doing Joe a favor. This is your opinion. It is possible that Joe could maintain that he would be doing you a favor by having innovated a machine for you to purchase. And that would be his opinion. If you would like to share your opinion directly with Joe, I'll be happy to provide his telephone numbers to you: (602) 977-2813 (Phoenix), or (602) 583-4333 (Phoenix), or (303) 814-3403 (Castle Rock) You write above: "is that any way to talk to man who has offered YOU $10,000 for YOUR machine..." First of all, you should be making the offer to Joe -- not to me. Secondly, the machine is Joe's, not mine. If you would like to make the offer directly to Joe, I believe you know his telephone numbers. Call him if you wish; do not call him if you don't wish. The choice is yours. > > . . . if there was anything even remotely antagonistic in my message > that you would not have hesitated a moment to contact Joe and get his > reply, BUT somehow *constructive* information can't seem to make it back > to him..... hmmmm. > > If you "really don't care one way or the other", why do you WASTE OUR > TIME even posting here? What is the point of ANY of us engaging in ANY > conversation with you about ANYTHING regarding Newman? By you own > admission, NOTHING will ever come of it. > >You are friggin' time wasters, both of you. And your machine is probably a >piece of crap. If it isn't crap, we'll never know, will we? Joe will take it >to his grave, like Meyer and the others. He'll piss away the biggest >opportunity in history because of his damned ego and his crazy demands, like >he wants *me* to pay long distance to do *him* a favor! > >- Jed And, of course, I could also claim that you are a "friggin' time waster." But I won't. Once again, Jed, you've stated your opinion that is a reflection of your ego. Actually, I happen to disagree with your opinion. And like me, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion. I'd love for you so express yourself directly to Joseph Newman as you just did in your last paragraph above. But then, that would mean that you would have to call him directly. Apparently this won't happen. Oh well.... Thanks again for sharing your opinion. Best regards, Evan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 19:43:09 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA25496; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 19:39:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 19:39:52 -0700 X-Sender: josephnewman earthlink.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 21:49:54 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Who calls who calls who calls who..... Resent-Message-ID: <"0lRm82.0.5E6.tbn0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22482 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Evan Soule wrote: >> Joe speaks to/with others for himself. And is it YOUR or OTHERS >> suggestion(s)/recommendation(s) -- not mine. Joe has continually told me >> that individuals with "recommendations" repeatedly choose not to call him >> and discuss their suggestions with him _directly_. So, John, I am not >> giving you any "crap." This is Joe's request. We can also jawbone amongst >> ourselves ad infinitum on this List about such "recommendations". Fine. >> Whatever. You can call him or you cannot call him directly -- frankly and >> honestly (and not meaning to sound antagonistic about it) --- but I really >> don't care one way or the other. > >Here is a suggestion. Print my message off and fax it to him. That is >about as >*direct* as it is going to get until Joe decides to get off his butt and start >making product. Period. > >With all due respect to both you and Joe, I find it so humorously ironic >that if >there was anything even remotely antagonistic in my message that you would not >have hesitated a moment to contact Joe and get his reply, BUT somehow >*constructive* information can't seem to make it back to him..... hmmmm. > >If you "really don't care one way or the other", why do you WASTE OUR TIME even >posting here? What is the point of ANY of us engaging in ANY conversation with >you about ANYTHING regarding Newman? By you own admission, NOTHING will ever >come of it. I just don't see the point. > >Frankly, I am ashamed of myself for even jumping into the conversation. I >really should know better by now. My apologies to the group. > > Dear John, Your apologies are accepted and appreciated -- and thanks for your suggestion. John, my intent is to post information about the technology. Period. Whether you choose to call Joe or not is _your_ choice -- your business. I have _no_ control over your (or anyone's) actions in this regard and, as such, "I could care less" to have such control. Pause ... the telephone rings..... BTW, Joe did just _now_ call me on the telephone regarding a request for a telephone number to contact someone who had been in Phoenix, and I mentioned to him that a gentleman from Motorola and I were having an ongoing discussion on one of the internet Lists about whether he should contact Joe directly or whether I should contact Joe on his behalf, or whether Joe should contact him -- and that we were discussing this subject of who should or should not contact whom at some length. Joe's response and offer to you, John: Please submit to him in writing (as a Confirmed Purchasing Order from Motorola) orders for his Motor/Generator units. You and he can discuss the terms of pricing/quantity/operating specs/delivery time. Joe has stated that a suitable Confirmed Order (from Motorola) will allow him to obtain the financing he needs to launch commercial production. You can send the above to: Joseph Newman Newman Energy Technologies Corp. 2050 Vineyard Drive Castle Rock, Colorado 80104 Or, of course, you are welcome to contact Joseph Newman at: (602) 977-2813 (Phoenix), or (602) 583-4333 (Phoenix), or (303) 814-3403 (Castle Rock) Perhaps the two of you can discuss this subject between yourselves. Best regards, Evan Soule' P.S. I just now opened your second email (after writing the above) in which you wrote, "Admonishment taken. I have a tendency to be too blunt at times. My apologies to Evan. No disrespect intended." Thanks. No problem. :-) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 20:09:13 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA03356; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 20:06:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 20:06:23 -0700 Message-ID: <19980919030719.15263.rocketmail send101.yahoomail.com> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 20:07:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Anton Rager Subject: Re: Give me a break! -- O.K. Take a break! To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"odZQJ.0.Fq.k-n0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22484 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I have very little interest in this ongoing banter, but couldn't help but notice the following: ---Evan Soule wrote: > > (602) 977-2813 (Phoenix), or > (602) 583-4333 (Phoenix), or > (303) 814-3403 (Castle Rock) > What! Joe Newman is in Castle Rock? Is that Castle Rock, Colorado? [has to be with a 303 area code, but I don't recognize the 814 part as 'from around here']. I'm in Castle Rock as well.....and this place ain't very big. Probably bumped into him at the local feed store......... Just curious. Amazingly small world. == 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 Fri Sep 18 20:10:03 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA04558; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 20:08:53 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 20:08:53 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980918231554.009edb20 cnct.com> X-Sender: knagel cnct.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 23:15:56 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Keith Nagel Subject: Re: OFF-SBJ: solution to Y2K power problem (fwd) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"u_d0y.0.871.51o0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22485 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 08:24 PM 9/18/98 -0600, you wrote: >Vortexians, >Apparently Newmans demonstration impressed some people. >Ron > >*** Forwarded message, originally written by Tom Miller >milcomark webwizzards.com on 18-Sep-98 *** > >I, for one, plan to buy one from him, and, if I had the money for a >distributorship, I would buy one right now! > Telling comment, yes Vortex? K. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 20:21:30 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA07180; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 20:17:31 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 20:17:31 -0700 Message-ID: <19980919031923.21128.rocketmail send103.yahoomail.com> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 20:19:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Anton Rager Subject: [Off Topic] I could walk over to Joe N's for a Beer ;) To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"Kz1S23.0.ol1.89o0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22486 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Don't just love it when another email has already answered one of your questions......must slow down....must slow down ;) ---Evan Soule wrote: > > You can send the above to: > > Joseph Newman > Newman Energy Technologies Corp. > 2050 Vineyard Drive > Castle Rock, Colorado 80104 > > Or, of course, you are welcome to contact Joseph Newman at: > > (602) 977-2813 (Phoenix), or > (602) 583-4333 (Phoenix), or > (303) 814-3403 (Castle Rock) > I could walk to his Colorado place in minutes! I can't believe it.....I'm neighbors with THE Joseph Newman..... Too wierd. == 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 Fri Sep 18 20:38:00 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA14327; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 20:36:57 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 20:36:57 -0700 Message-ID: <024401bde379$220bf980$d4b4bfa8 default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Cc: "George" Subject: Re: High-Field ZPE Pumping in Capacitors and Inductors Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 20:55:59 -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: <"9HrMz3.0.mV3.ORo0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22487 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex The capacitors with hydrogenous dielectrics, oil,polypropylene, polycarbonate, polyethylene, etc., and the inductors that use "enameled" magnet wire, and thus have capacitance between the windings, should when pulsed with voltages high enough to induce added polarization, show o-u effects. The "self-charging" especially in high voltage oil-filled capacitors might be a clue that substantiates this. Automotive ignition coils, and capacitors with hydrogenous dielectrics might show o-u if tested properly. Not to mention the Newman Motor. :-) Given that the electric field between the ground-state electron and the proton (V = kq/R)is 27.2/5.29E-11 ~= 5.0E11 volts/meter, and a voltage close to breakdown in a capacitor approaches this value, High-Field ZPE Pumping with minimal energy expenditure, might be possible with capacitors and/or inductors? Thoughts? Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 20:49:01 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA16954; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 20:47:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 20:47:09 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 22:57:13 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Clarke-Hess PLUS battery test Resent-Message-ID: <"E_Usb2.0.k84.yao0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22488 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >At 05:23 PM 9/18/98 -0600, you wrote: >>>On Fri, 18 Sep 1998, Mitchell Jones wrote: > >>***{Lynn, I don't know whether Newman is a certifiable nutter or an >>idiosyncratic genius, and so I am open to either possibility. What you are >>missing is simply the fact that you don't know, either. --Mitchell >>Jones}*** >> > >Well, no Mitchell, you are wrong. I am not missing that fact. It is good to >keep an open mind. But to quote someone from SPF long ago (I'm sorry, I >don't recall the author, but I like the quote), "you don't need to keep >your mind so open that your brains fall out." Given Newman's track record, >the "genius" part doesn't seem too likely to me. When (if) Little and >Puthoff's lab come out with a positive result with the Newman motor, that >will be BIG news and I will change my mind. Until then, well, like I was >thinking, why would anyone proceed like they are if they actually have what >they claim? As Spock would say, "It's not logical!". > >--Lynn Lynn, Thanks for your comments! Regarding Joseph Newman's track record: Joseph Newman has had his prototypes tested by more than 30 scientists/engineers/technicians who have signed Affidavits as to its operability. As has been stated, a former U.S. Commissioner of the Patent Office and Technical Expert with "superb credentials" (according to Patent Office Officials), William Schuyler, has stated in his Report of the Special Master: "The evidence before the Patent and Trademark Office and this Court is OVERWHELMING that Newman has built and tested a prototype of his invention in which the output energy exceeds the external input energy; there is NO contradictory factual evidence." Since Joseph Newman has provided his explanations, I'd love to know your fundamental mechanical explanations for Fleming's Rule and Magnetic Attraction and Repulsion. Best regards, Evan Soule' From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 20:55:19 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA20737; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 20:52:14 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 20:52:14 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 23:02:19 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Give me a break! -- O.K. Take a break! Resent-Message-ID: <"0IAbs2.0.x35.kfo0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22489 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >I have very little interest in this ongoing banter, but couldn't help >but notice the following: > > >---Evan Soule wrote: > >> >> (602) 977-2813 (Phoenix), or >> (602) 583-4333 (Phoenix), or >> (303) 814-3403 (Castle Rock) >> > >What! Joe Newman is in Castle Rock? Is that Castle Rock, Colorado? >[has to be with a 303 area code, but I don't recognize the 814 part as >'from around here']. I'm in Castle Rock as well.....and this place >ain't very big. Probably bumped into him at the local feed >store......... > >Just curious. Amazingly small world. >== >Anton Rager >a_rager yahoo.com > >_________________________________________________________ >DO YOU YAHOO!? >Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Yep, Castle Rock, Colorado. He'll probably be back there next week. If you like, I can let you know when he's back in Castle Rock if you want to give him a call while he's there. Let me know by private email, if you will. Evan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 21:32:04 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA31469; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 21:28:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 21:28:55 -0700 From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Lattice software Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 04:30:03 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <360b3281.256979753 mail-hub> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"mB8GF3.0.ch7.6Cp0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22490 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Does anyone know of any PC software that can predict a Bravais lattice based on the atoms involved, and their ratios and temperature? (Alternately a web site with Java or form based interface?) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 22:06:07 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA08408; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 22:05:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 22:05:13 -0700 Message-ID: <061401bde38a$d2764440$ba98a8cf hh2152186.www.surfsouth.com> From: "Bill Wallace" To: Subject: Re: Nuclear Solutions Radwaste Process Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 01:03:09 -0400 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: <"kxR1f3.0.I32.9kp0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22491 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Is this company publicly traded? >....shows how overlooked yet completely conventional nuclear physics can be >used to drastically reduce the half-lives of prominent radioactive >isotopes.... > >Well, Gene, you sure know how to get my attention! Can you supply some >details now or do we have to wait for the smail? Is the article on your >web site? > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 22:21:27 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA15116; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 22:20:34 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 22:20:34 -0700 Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 01:18:35 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: The soul of tact?!? Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809190121_MC2-59F2-B528 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"m0bGu.0.th3.Yyp0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22492 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Mitchell Jones writes: What if Newman's motor works, Jed? When you cease laughing, I suggest you think about it. I've thought about it! If the motor works, Newman is the biggest jerk in history for keeping it secret. Do you really want to get caught up in lampooning his idiosyncrasies and the burdens he imposes on his friends . . . Darn right I lampoon him! He is unforgivable. If the machine is a fraud he is wasting our time and if it is real he is a monster who has been indirectly killing 50,000 people a week to satisfy his ego. (That is how many people his technology could save. What would you say of him if he held the cure for AIDS, and kept it secret for decades?) I have no sympathy for inventors who keep their discoveries off the market for no reason. They should live in wretched poverty. They contribute nothing to society, so they deserve nothing in return. I doubt that Newman is guilty of anything worse than self-deception. His machine probably does not work. He is a buffoon. He withholds nothing from society, and he hurts no one with his dreams of glory. At least he does not go around defrauding investors and customers the way some other Perpetual Motion Machine Men do. Anyway, we'll never know, will we? I know how this will play out. I have seen dozens like him. He will never bring his machine to Scott Little. He will never use proper instruments or allow a real scientist to examine it. He will not sell machines. Occasionally he may bamboozle an engineer from Ray-o-vac, and then he will hasten to destroy the machine, in order to hide the evidence so that he go around years later claiming Ray-o-vac verified it. He will ensure there is no way to verify or challenge his claim. He will do everything within his power to confuse the situation, and to make it look as if the government is persecuting him. After he dies, myths will live on for years about how his technology was "suppressed" -- even though he himself was to blame for this bogus "suppression." After he dies and takes his "secrets" to the grave, it will no longer matter whether the machine was real or fraudulent. It becomes, as I often say, tantamount to a fraud. It might as well be a fraud for all the good it does. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 18 23:51:46 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA03408; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 23:48:38 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 23:48:38 -0700 Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 02:46:30 -0400 From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: OFF-SBJ: solution to Y2K power problem (fwd) Sender: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Message-ID: <199809190249_MC2-59F9-FDB9 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"VEb9-.0.9r.5Fr0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22493 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Re: >> *** Forwarded message, originally written by Tom Miller milcomark webwizzards.com on 18-Sep-98 *** << >> He is going into production this month and he expects to sell the unit for around $6000. Right now, he is looking for distributors for the device, to sell them around the world. I, for one, plan to buy one from him, and, if I had the money for a distributorship, I would buy one right now! << Now - where have I heard that before ??? (;^) Norman Horwood From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 19 00:48:14 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA10059; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 00:37:06 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 00:37:06 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 02:46:44 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: The soul of tact?!? Resent-Message-ID: <"44O9-1.0.-S2.Xyr0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22494 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >To: Vortex > >Mitchell Jones writes: > > What if Newman's motor works, Jed? When you cease laughing, I suggest > you think about it. > >I've thought about it! If the motor works, Newman is the biggest jerk in >history for keeping it secret. Dear Jed, Thanks again for your insightful comments. You have obviously "thought about it" long and hard. Yep, Jed. Joe is the "biggest jerk in history" to send in 1967 his research to the Physics Departments of the University of Alabama, Stanford University, University of California at Berkeley, the University of California at Los Angeles, California Institute of Technology, University of Southern California, University of Colorado, University of Connecticut, Yale University, Catholic University of America, Georgetown University, Florida State University, University of Florida, Georgia Institute of Technology, Illinois Institute of Technology, Northwestern University, University of Chicago, University of Illinois, Indiana University, Purdue University, University of Notre Dame, Iowa State University of Science and Technology, State University of Iowa, University of Kansas, Louisiana State University, John Hopkins University, University of Maryland, Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Radcliffe College, Michigan State University, University of Michigan, University of Minnesota, Washington University, Princeton University, Rutger - The State University, Columbia University, Cornell University, New York University, University of Rochester, Duke University, University of North Carolina, Case Institute of Technology, Ohio State University, Carnegie Institute of Technology, Pennsylvania State University, University of Pennsylvania, University of Pittsburg, Brown University, University of Tennessee, Rice University, University of Texas, University of Utah, University of Virginia, University of Washington, University of Wisconsin. Yep, Jed. Joe is the "biggest jerk in history" for sending a manuscript about his research to The Physical Review and Physical Review Letters in May, 1967. Yep, Jed. Joe is the "biggest jerk in history" for writing the National Science Foundation about his work on July, 1967. Yep, Jed. Joe is the "biggest jerk in history" for writing NASA about his work on August 1967. Yep, Jed. Joe is the "biggest jerk in history" for sending a Report about his work to every U.S. President since President Lyndon Johnson. Yep, Jed. Joe is the "biggest jerk in history" for sending a manuscript about his research to the Atomic Energy Commission on January 7, 1969. Yep, Jed. Joe is the "biggest jerk in history" for sending his research yet again to The Physical Review and Physical Review Letters in March, 1974. Yep, Jed. Joe is the "biggest jerk in history" for sending his research to the Federal Energy Office in April, 1974. Yep, Jed. Joe is the "biggest jerk in history" for sending his research to the Journal of Geophysical Research in May, 1974. Yep, Jed. Joe is the "biggest jerk in history" for sending his research to the National Academy of Sciences in July 1974. Yep, Jed. Joe is the "biggest jerk in history" for sending his research yet again to the National Science Foundation in December, 1974. Yep, Jed. Joe is the "biggest jerk in history" for sending his research to the U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration in August, 1976. Yep, Jed. Joe is the "biggest jerk in history" for sending his research to the Department of Energy in March, 1979. Yep, Jed. Joe is the "biggest jerk in history" for disclosing the nature of his technology in his book which he published in 1984. Yep, Jed. Joe is the "biggest jerk in history" for demonstrating his technology to more than 30 scientists who signed Affidavits to the operability of his technology. Yep, Jed. Joe is the "biggest jerk in history" to freely and publicly demonstrate his technology for one entire week to over 9,000 people at the Louisiana Superdome. Yep, Jed. Joe is the "biggest jerk in history" to freely and publicly demonstrate his technology at the New Orleans Hilton Hotel to over 2500 people. Yep, Jed. Joe is the "biggest jerk in history" to freely and publicly demonstrate his technology at the Jackson Coliseum. Yep, Jed. Joe is the "biggest jerk in history" to freely and publicly demonstrate his technology at the Biloxi Coliseum. Yep, Jed. Joe is the "biggest jerk in history" to freely and publicly demonstrate his technology at the Atlanta Coliseum. Yep, Jed. Joe is the "biggest jerk in history" to freely and publicly demonstrate his technology at the Mobile Coliseum and the Adams Mark Hotel. Yep, Jed. Joe is the "biggest jerk in history" to freely and publicly demonstrate his technology in the Pasadena, California Convention Center. Yep, Jed. Joe is the "biggest jerk in history" to freely and publicly demonstrate his technology at the Washington, D.C. Capitol Centre. During these demonstrations scientists who have endorsed his work spoke out publicly on his behalf and all of these demonstrations of the technology, public appearances, interviews, and documentaries have been recorded and preserved. Yep, Jed. Like you say, Joe has certainly been "keeping it secret." > > > Do you really want to get caught up in lampooning his idiosyncrasies and > the burdens he imposes on his friends . . . > >Darn right I lampoon him! He is unforgivable. If the machine is a fraud he is >wasting our time and if it is real he is a monster who has been indirectly >killing 50,000 people a week to satisfy his ego. (That is how many people his >technology could save. What would you say of him if he held the cure for AIDS, >and kept it secret for decades?) I have no sympathy for inventors who keep >their discoveries off the market for no reason. They should live in wretched >poverty. They contribute nothing to society, so they deserve nothing in >return. No, Jed. It is your apparent unwillingness to learn the history of this technology which is unforgivable. No doubt this is a comment upon which you will NOT act, but I challenge you, Jed Rothwell, to call Joseph Newman and state to his face that "he is a monster who has been indirectly killing 50,000 people a week to satisfy his ego." But of course, I know you won't do this. You do not have the courage. Like a "yapping little dog," you yap at his heels behind his back, from behind the safety of your computer, but you will not state such an accusation to his ear over the telephone -- let alone to his face. Now that REALLY would be something I would like to see. I would LOVE --- L-O-V-E --- to see you say the above to his face, in person. Oh, I know that will never happen, and though I abhore violence, I must admit to a tiny little bit of satisfaction in the thought of witnessing Joe relieving you of your impaction -- mental as well as physical were you to state that to his face. The above totally erroneous statement on your part is reflective of that four-letter-word relating to feces which you are so fond of providing in your email. He is quite aware -- more so than you have ANY IDEA -- of the benefits which his technology could mean to the world and of the exhaustive efforts over the years to fight him. All he originally wanted was a patent --- and a chance to have the equal opportunity with such patent protection to prove himself in the marketplace. Eleven different Congressman introduced eleven Private Relief Bills intended to grant him such patent protection; and one entrenched, special-interest Congressman refused to even hold hearings on these Bills. Well, for what's it worth, we had a bit of revenge upon that Congressman and at least obtained a small amount of satisfaction: We helped to get him thrown out of office after his 30-year tenure-ship. After having studied the history of the struggle of Joseph Newman to bring forth this technology, it was Congressman Robert Torricelli who once stated, "This is the greatest conspiracy against any human being in the history of our world." To put it as mildly as I can, Jed, your "blame" for the "killing of 50,000 people a week" is misplaced....grossly misplaced. As to your ridiculous statement: "I have no sympathy for inventors who keep their discoveries off the market for no reason. They should live in wretched poverty." It is you, Jed, who "lives in wretched poverty." The wretched poverty of your own intellectual dishonesty. > >I doubt that Newman is guilty of anything worse than self-deception. His >machine probably does not work. He is a buffoon. He withholds nothing from >society, and he hurts no one with his dreams of glory. At least he does not go >around defrauding investors and customers the way some other Perpetual Motion >Machine Men do. Anyway, we'll never know, will we? I know how this will play >out. I have seen dozens like him. He will never bring his machine to Scott >Little. He will never use proper instruments or allow a real scientist to >examine it. He will not sell machines. Occasionally he may bamboozle an >engineer from Ray-o-vac, and then he will hasten to destroy the machine, in >order to hide the evidence so that he go around years later claiming Ray-o-vac >verified it. He will ensure there is no way to verify or challenge his claim. >He will do everything within his power to confuse the situation, and to make >it look as if the government is persecuting him. After he dies, myths will >live on for years about how his technology was "suppressed" -- even though he >himself was to blame for this bogus "suppression." After he dies and takes his >"secrets" to the grave, it will no longer matter whether the machine was real >or fraudulent. It becomes, as I often say, tantamount to a fraud. It might as >well be a fraud for all the good it does. > >- Jed The "buffoon" is not Joseph Newman. I suggest you employ a mirror to visualize this characteristic. Your comment about "hastening to destroy the machine" is totally ridiculous; but then, given your lack of understanding or knowledge of the history of the technology, it is not surprising. Well, Jed, thanks again for the opportunity to provide you with my comments. Best regards, Evan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 19 00:55:16 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA11646; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 00:48:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 00:48:25 -0700 Message-Id: <199809190748.CAA19707 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 02:47:59 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: The soul of tact?!? Resent-Message-ID: <"WE8dz3.0.ur2.87s0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22495 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >To: Vortex > >Mitchell Jones writes: > > What if Newman's motor works, Jed? When you cease laughing, I suggest > you think about it. > >I've thought about it! If the motor works, Newman is the biggest jerk in >history for keeping it secret. > > > Do you really want to get caught up in lampooning his idiosyncrasies and > the burdens he imposes on his friends . . . > >Darn right I lampoon him! He is unforgivable. If the machine is a fraud he is >wasting our time and if it is real he is a monster who has been indirectly >killing 50,000 people a week to satisfy his ego. ***{Jed, this is the most transparently irrational statement I have ever encountered in one of your posts. By implication, you absolve the patent office and the various other nefarious forces against which you happily railed in the past, when they placed obstacles in the paths of people favored by you (e.g., Pons and Fleischmann). Dark forces all when contending against your favorites, they are suddenly pure as the driven snow when contending against Newman. That, at any rate, is what you imply when you place the entire responsibility for the delay of his technology on him alone. --Mitchell Jones}*** (That is how many people his >technology could save. What would you say of him if he held the cure for AIDS, >and kept it secret for decades? ***{Doing without the benefits of innovation is the price Americans pay for supporting and encouraging state parasitism. Most of them thoroughly deserve the shorter, more miserable lives with which the leviathan state repays them for their support, and they get no sympathy from me whatever. My sympathy, instead, is reserved for those few decent folks who opposed the creation of this looter government and had it foisted on them anyway. --Mitchell Jones}*** ) I have no sympathy for inventors who keep >their discoveries off the market for no reason. They should live in wretched >poverty. They contribute nothing to society, so they deserve nothing in >return. ***{And I have no sympathy for a society which gives inventors good reasons to keep their discoveries off of the market. It is an unarguable fact that this society is wildly anti-intellectual, hostile to innovators, and thoroughly parasitic. Those attitudes have shaped every aspect of the legal, regulatory, and tax framework as it relates to inventors. Because of the obstacle course which would-be bloodsuckers have enacted into law, most worthwhile ideas are never turned into products. The reason: there is simply no reasonable pathway, in most cases, by which the innovators may profit from their ideas. Result: society deserves the lion's share of the blame when frustrated inventors withhold the fruits of their labor. By and large people are getting what they thoroughly deserve, nothing more, and nothing less. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >I doubt that Newman is guilty of anything worse than self-deception. His >machine probably does not work. He is a buffoon. He withholds nothing from >society, and he hurts no one with his dreams of glory. At least he does not go >around defrauding investors and customers the way some other Perpetual Motion >Machine Men do. Anyway, we'll never know, will we? I know how this will play >out. I have seen dozens like him. He will never bring his machine to Scott >Little. He will never use proper instruments or allow a real scientist to >examine it. He will not sell machines. Occasionally he may bamboozle an >engineer from Ray-o-vac, and then he will hasten to destroy the machine, in >order to hide the evidence so that he go around years later claiming Ray-o-vac >verified it. He will ensure there is no way to verify or challenge his claim. >He will do everything within his power to confuse the situation, and to make >it look as if the government is persecuting him. After he dies, myths will >live on for years about how his technology was "suppressed" -- even though he >himself was to blame for this bogus "suppression." After he dies and takes his >"secrets" to the grave, it will no longer matter whether the machine was real >or fraudulent. It becomes, as I often say, tantamount to a fraud. It might as >well be a fraud for all the good it does. ***{These are contentless speculations, unsupported and unsupportable. The fact of the matter is that neither you nor I nor anyone else in this group knows whether the Newman motor works or not, and until we do know, we cannot form a reasoned evaluation of Newman's intelligence or of his character. If the motor works, then he is a genius; if it doesn't, he is a fool. We cannot choose between these two interpretations in a vacuum. Thus the sorts of pejorative speculations which you indulge in, above, are a transparent waste of time. The focus should be on the motor. Does it work, or doesn't it? That's all that matters here. The rest is just noise. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >- Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 19 04:21:24 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA04672; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 04:17:43 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 04:17:43 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980919070927.00810ca0 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 07:09:27 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: The soul of tact?!? In-Reply-To: <199809190121_MC2-59F2-B528 compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"aSuHx3.0.w81.MBv0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22496 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 01:18 AM 9/19/98 -0400, Jed Rothwell continues his vicious libel and attacks on cf and o/u researchers: >Rothwell: "Darn right I lampoon him! He is unforgivable. If the machine is a fraud he is >wasting our time and if it is real he is a monster who has been indirectly >killing 50,000 people a week to satisfy his ego." >- Jed First, this is NOT science. The above evil/BS was purportedly banished to vortex-B, but Jed remains "above the rules", defiant and vicious as ever. Second, Rothwell - having attacked and insulted hardworking researchers cf worldwide and having himself increased the "Rodney Dangerfield" aspect of cold fusion by nonsense and drivel as the above, must HIMSELF be responsible for some of those purported 50,000 deaths per week. Third, hopefully this demonstrates for Bill Beatty, Soo, and M. Jones, etc., that Jed is simply incorrigible, and as a result scientists and serious researchers will unfortunately continue to leave vortex to evade his nasty shenanigans including insults, and false accusations. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 19 07:26:25 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA03202; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 07:24:46 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 07:24:46 -0700 Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 10:22:04 -0400 From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: The soul of tact?!? Sender: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" Message-ID: <199809191025_MC2-59F9-5D43 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"T0eOD1.0.xn.jwx0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22497 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Evan Said: (among other things!) >> Yep, Jed. Like you say, Joe has certainly been "keeping it secret." << In the light of all the disclosure and demos I find it very difficult to understand why no single recipient of all this data and descriptive literature has replicated the motor. Its one thing to say "it looks marvelous" or "I agree that the theory has merit" or similar broad comments, but a totally different matter to say "I have copied Joe's design and my version also outputs more than is input". Has anyone ever reported a proven replication? Or has anyone ever stolen the design and made a fortune from it? This is not the same as being accused of plagiarism by Joe. While I admit Jed's turn of phrase can be slightly un-British, but what he says IMHO is basically correct as an entrepreneur/businessman. I've been there, done that, got the T-shirt. I hope Joe takes the general feeling of Vortex to heart and takes a working version to Earth Tech for validation. BTW, has Joe a fax m/c? If not why can't he get one ASAP - it would save a lot of time and hassle. Regards, Norman Horwood From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 19 07:43:47 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA07114; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 07:42:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 07:42:48 -0700 Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 10:40:46 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: The soul of tact?!? Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809191043_MC2-59EF-6DB2 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"SkE5o2.0.yk1.dBy0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22498 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Mitchell Jones writes: Jed, this is the most transparently irrational statement I have ever encountered in one of your posts. By implication, you absolve the patent office and the various other nefarious forces against which you happily railed in the past, when they placed obstacles in the paths of people favored by you (e.g., Pons and Fleischmann). The Patent Office has made life difficult for CF scientists, but it was CETI who torpedoed Pons and Fleischmann after they received a European patent. It wasn't the P.O.'s fault. The Patent Office is corrupt, but it can be overcome with clever tactics, as CETI and others have demonstrated. Pons and Fleischmann and their Japanese sponsors did themselves no favors. They are all three alienated from one-another, for good reason. They blew it! I think the Japanese IMRA managers deserve most of the blame. When Toyoda died they lost their sense of direction. Alas, Pons and Fleischmann also contributed to the failure. I say that with deep regret, because I respect and admire them. I think they are scientific geniuses but they are not good at business. Many good inventors are bad businessmen. The Wright brothers all but destroyed their own prospects. They dithered and screwed up for three years when they should have been earning millions. Fortunately, after three years they saw the light and began taking advice from experts. Dark forces all when contending against your favorites, they are suddenly pure as the driven snow when contending against Newman. Don't be silly, Mitchell. Don't exaggerate my position. I am no friend of the P.O. That, at any rate, is what you imply when you place the entire responsibility for the delay of his technology on him alone. It is entirely his fault. Assuming the machine is real, if Newman had acted rationally any time in the last 20 or 30 years, the entire world would now be powered by his machines, and he would be ten time richer than Bill Gates (who has done quite well for himself without patents). The only thing that stops Newman is Newman himself. And I have no sympathy for a society which gives inventors good reasons to keep their discoveries off of the market. It is an unarguable fact that this society is wildly anti-intellectual, hostile to innovators, I do not know any good reasons to keep a discovery off the market. I have never withheld my innovations (which are pedestrian and not patentable). I make an excellent living. My family has been in the innovation business since 1910. We have no complaints. Society has always been anti-intellectual and hostile to innovators. In 1870 a man in Boston was jailed for fraud & lunacy because he thought he could make a telephone. Edison and the Wright brothers faced tremendous opposition. The reason: there is simply no reasonable pathway, in most cases, by which the innovators may profit from their ideas. That's NONSENSE! I can show anyone with a good idea how to profit from it. I have been doing that since I was 16 years old. It isn't easy. You have to work at it. But it isn't easy making a living as a good cook, or an honest mechanic, a teacher, or a farmer either. Result: society deserves the lion's share of the blame when frustrated inventors withhold the fruits of their labor. Oh sure, and if a farmer doesn't like the market price, he should destroy the fruits of his labor and demand a welfare check I suppose? If a mechanic decides he is sick of grease, filth, heavy machinery, and backbreaking labor he should go on strike? The world does not owe inventors special dispensation. The inventor must market his goods, seek out customers and investors, make a good impression, and do the best he can. A good product with high demand is easy to sell. A half-wit could make a fortune selling real Newman machines. These are contentless speculations, unsupported and unsupportable. That's not true! Soule admitted the Newman destroyed the Ray-o-vac demonstration machine. The demonstration on Saturday was a fiasco, just like all of the other demonstrations and lectures Newman has given, year after year. I have not attended a lecture, but I have seen videos and reports of them. I know what he has done. Newman's pattern of behavior is exactly as I have described it. You can see the same self-destructive behavior in hundreds of other Perpetual Motion Machine inventors, and many cold fusion scientists too, unfortunately. The fact of the matter is that neither you nor I nor anyone else in this group knows whether the Newman motor works or not . . . I am critiquing his behavior, not his invention. . . . and until we do know, we cannot form a reasoned evaluation of Newman's intelligence or of his character. We can evaluate his intelligence and his character by observing his behavior, which has been self-destructive and reprehensible. If the motor works, then he is a genius; if it doesn't, he is a fool. If the motor works he is both a genius and a fool. And he is insane for destroying his certified, working Ray-o-vac prototype, instead of using it to cash in. He could have used it to win his battle with the P.O. and make himself the richest man on earth. The focus should be on the motor. Does it work, or doesn't it? That's all that matters here. Yes, that's what matters, but we will never know whether the motor works. Newman will never allow us to find out. After decades of concealment, double talk, destruction of prototypes, grandiose claims that never pan out, and meaningless demonstrations I think it is safe to predict his behavior will not change. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 19 07:44:19 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA07141; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 07:42:50 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 07:42:50 -0700 Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 10:40:30 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: The soul of tact?!? Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809191043_MC2-59EF-6DB1 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"7JnJO3.0.Rl1.fBy0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22499 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Evan Soule writes: No doubt this is a comment upon which you will NOT act, but I challenge you, Jed Rothwell, to call Joseph Newman and state to his face that "he is a monster who has been indirectly killing 50,000 people a week to satisfy his ego." But of course, I know you won't do this. It's a nuisance, but I'll print out my comments and mail them to Newman. . . . you will not state such an accusation to his ear over the telephone -- let alone to his face. Now that REALLY would be something I would like to see. I would LOVE --- L-O-V-E --- to see you say the above to his face, in person. I do not like making telephone calls. I do not expect I will have an opportunity to meet Newman, but if I ever do I will not hesitate to tell him what I think. I was quite blunt with him when I called him the other day. In polite language I told him repeatedly that his "demonstration" was a meaningless farce. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 19 08:21:50 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA17126; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 08:20:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 08:20:59 -0700 Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 11:17:33 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Sending research to Stanford Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809191121_MC2-59F2-BEF5 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"ernBO3.0.WB4.Qly0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22500 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Evan Soule again gives us a brilliant example of how not to market an invention: Yep, Jed. Joe is the "biggest jerk in history" to send in 1967 his research to the Physics Departments of the University of Alabama, Stanford University, University of California at Berkeley, the University of California at Los Angeles, California Institute of Technology, University of Southern California . . . And bla, bla, bla. Yeah, right! Imagine it is 1907 and by order of President Roosevelt, the War Department asks the Wrights to demonstrate their invention in Washington. They reply: "We do not have an airplane any more. It was cold in Dayton last winter; we burned up our only prototype for firewood after the Ray-o-vac man saw it fly. But look here, since 1902 we have circulated our wind-tunnel data and our published papers to hundreds of universities! The University of Alabama, Stanford University, University of California at Berkeley . . ." Nobody would have paid the slightest attention to the Wrights. People would have dismissed their data and their notebooks and their 1901 paper as crackpot science. The Wrights would have shown the French investors and Charles Rolls the photos and affidavits from their 1905 flights, and Rolls would have said, "Fine! Now where is your latest model? Let's see a test flight." They would have replied, "we have nothing to show you" and he would have said, "well then don't let the door hit you on the bum as you leave." (As the Brits say!) - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 19 11:15:36 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA30803; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 11:10:46 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 11:10:46 -0700 Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 11:12:50 -0700 From: Lynn Kurtz Subject: Re: Clarke-Hess PLUS battery test In-reply-to: X-Sender: kurtz imap2.asu.edu (Unverified) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <199809191811.LAA19474 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: <"49bv5.0.0X7.ZE_0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22501 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:57 PM 9/18/98 -0600, you wrote: >Since Joseph Newman has provided his explanations, I'd love to know your >fundamental mechanical explanations for Fleming's Rule and Magnetic >Attraction and Repulsion. > > And why is that Evan? I don't care about Joe's "explanations" and theories about his motor any more than I care about Greg Watson's endless posts on why his SMOTS all work. Watson has never delivered a working SMOT, and Newman has never delivered a working o/u motor. Let me know when he sends one to Puthoff & Little's lab. You don't need a theory to explain an non-existant effect. --Lynn From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 19 11:24:15 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA00727; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 11:22:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 11:22:09 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 13:32:13 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: The soul of tact?!? Resent-Message-ID: <"ClJsg.0.8B.GP_0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22502 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Evan Said: (among other things!) > >>> Yep, Jed. Like you say, Joe has certainly been "keeping it secret." << > >In the light of all the disclosure and demos I find it very difficult to >understand why no single recipient of all this data and descriptive >literature has replicated the motor. Its one thing to say "it looks >marvelous" or "I agree that the theory has merit" or similar broad >comments, but a totally different matter to say "I have copied Joe's design >and my version also outputs more than is input". > >Has anyone ever reported a proven replication? Or has anyone ever stolen >the design and made a fortune from it? This is not the same as being >accused of plagiarism by Joe. A gentleman in Philadelphia [and if you wish to contact him call Joseph Newman for his name/address since the PA individual is an inventor and has stated to Joe that values his privacy and that he "did not independently construct an operational unit to 'challenge the world' but only to see for himself if the technology worked"] sent us a videotape of an operating unit which he constructed from having read Joe's book. Many people have seen this videotape. In the latest Edition of his book, Joe has reported the theft of his technology by MinnKota Corp. who have made a fortune employing his designs in their trolling motors. He has stated that Dr. Roger Hastings (who has been a consultant to MinnKota) has been the conduit of information to MinnKota. What I have found curious is that MinnKota would 1) suddenly began advertising their product as "COOL POWER" (a motor that runs cool) and 2) simultaneously change the nomenclature of their trolling motors from "horsepower" to "thrust" --- at the same time that Joe has stated they began using his technology in their products > >While I admit Jed's turn of phrase can be slightly un-British, but what he >says IMHO is basically correct as an entrepreneur/businessman. I've been >there, done that, got the T-shirt. > >I hope Joe takes the general feeling of Vortex to heart and takes a working >version to Earth Tech for validation. > >BTW, has Joe a fax m/c? If not why can't he get one ASAP - it would save a >lot of time and hassle. > >Regards, Norman Horwood Joe's fax is at his Colorado address. At the present time he is in Phoenix. Sincerely, Evan Soule' From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 19 11:24:18 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA00765; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 11:22:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 11:22:13 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 13:32:15 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: The soul of tact?!? Resent-Message-ID: <"gSFzB.0.tB.KP_0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22503 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >To: Vortex > > >If the motor works he is both a genius and a fool. And he is insane for >destroying his certified, working Ray-o-vac prototype, instead of using it to >cash in. He could have used it to win his battle with the P.O. and make >himself the richest man on earth. > > > The focus should be on the motor. Does it work, or doesn't it? That's > all that matters here. > >Yes, that's what matters, but we will never know whether the motor works. >Newman will never allow us to find out. After decades of concealment, double >talk, destruction of prototypes, grandiose claims that never pan out, and >meaningless demonstrations I think it is safe to predict his behavior will >not change. > >- Jed Dear Jed, If only you had been around, communicating with Joe with the tone of friendly and sensitive banter at which you are well adept, when he needed to use the copper and magnets from his earlier prototypes to construct his newer prototypes. Considering my earlier post regarding Joe's presentation and disclosure of the technology in countless forms and venues over the past three decades, I find your words "decades of concealment" to be a tad inaccurate. But that is just my opinion. By your own words I will predict that your behavior will not change: you will seemingly 'rant and rave' against Joe behind your computer, but you will never confront him with your opinion to his face. Sincerely, Evan ALSO -------- >To: Vortex > >Evan Soule' writes: > > No doubt this is a comment upon which you will NOT act, but I challenge > you, Jed Rothwell, to call Joseph Newman and state to his face that "he > is a monster who has been indirectly killing 50,000 people a week to > satisfy his ego." But of course, I know you won't do this. > >It's a nuisance, but I'll print out my comments and mail them to Newman. Well, Jed, I guess we all have to endure nuisances from time to time. I guess this means you won't be calling him. O.K...... > > > . . . you will not state such an accusation to his ear over the > telephone -- let alone to his face. Now that REALLY would be something > I would like to see. I would LOVE --- L-O-V-E --- to see you say the > above to his face, in person. > >I do not like making telephone calls. I do not expect I will have an >opportunity to meet Newman, but if I ever do I will not hesitate to tell him >what I think. I was quite blunt with him when I called him the other day. In >polite language I told him repeatedly that his "demonstration" was a >meaningless farce. > >- Jed "Polite language." I understand. However, if you stated to Joe over the telephone what you wrote in your email, I can understand why you would not like making telephone calls. Best regards, Evan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 19 11:24:55 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA01429; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 11:23:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 11:23:15 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 13:33:18 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Sending research to Stanford Resent-Message-ID: <"FnB1n3.0.zL.IQ_0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22504 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >To: Vortex > >Evan Soule again gives us a brilliant example of how not to market an >invention: > > Yep, Jed. Joe is the "biggest jerk in history" to send in 1967 his > research to the Physics Departments of the University of Alabama, > Stanford University, University of California at Berkeley, the > University of California at Los Angeles, California Institute of > Technology, University of Southern California . . . > >And bla, bla, bla. Yeah, right! Imagine it is 1907 and by order of President >Roosevelt, the War Department asks the Wrights to demonstrate their invention >in Washington. They reply: "We do not have an airplane any more. It was cold >in Dayton last winter; we burned up our only prototype for firewood after the >Ray-o-vac man saw it fly. But look here, since 1902 we have circulated our >wind-tunnel data and our published papers to hundreds of universities! The >University of Alabama, Stanford University, University of California at >Berkeley . . ." > >Nobody would have paid the slightest attention to the Wrights. People would >have dismissed their data and their notebooks and their 1901 paper as crackpot >science. The Wrights would have shown the French investors and Charles Rolls >the photos and affidavits from their 1905 flights, and Rolls would have said, >"Fine! Now where is your latest model? Let's see a test flight." They would >have replied, "we have nothing to show you" and he would have said, "well then >don't let the door hit you on the bum as you leave." (As the Brits say!) > >- Jed Dear Jed, Your meaningful comments are appreciated .... especially the "bla, bla, bla." :-) As a matter of fact at the beginning of the 1980s Joe did load his c. 800-lb prototype on a flatbed and travel to Washington, D.C. with Dr. Hastings in an attempt to have various federal agencies observe, examine, and test the technology. From the PTO to the NBS (and a few energy agencies in between) no one was interested. Obviously, it is a shame that you were not there to be a spokesman for the technology. With your calm, reasoned, and thoughtful approach Joe would surely have found a warm reception in 'dem bureaucratic halls. It was c. 1985 that Joe again traveled to Washington, D.C. This time with his 12,000 pound prototype (with a 750-pound magnetic rotor) on a flatbed truck to the Capitol Centre. He demonstrated the prototype and had a number of physicists and engineers speaking out on his behalf. A variety of federal energy officials and government representatives were invited to attend as well as the national newsmedia. While I witnessed the often-jaundiced Capitol newsmedia giving him a "standing ovation" after the presentation by Joe and the physicists/engineers, not a single representative from the government attended. Over the years he has used the materials from his earlier prototypes to construct more advanced prototypes. Perhaps if Joe had been financed at taxpayers's expense, then he could have afforded not to have to recycle his prototypes. But then, under our esteemed and honorable President's guidance, everyone knows how careful and miserly is the federal government in spending even one penny of the taxpayer's money. Wasteful government spending has never been an issue or problem. Thanks again for your thoughts, Jed. Best regards, Evan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 19 11:52:49 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA11982; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 11:49:58 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 11:49:58 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 14:00:03 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Clarke-Hess PLUS battery test Resent-Message-ID: <"pI4IO3.0.8x2.Lp_0s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22505 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >At 10:57 PM 9/18/98 -0600, you wrote: > > > >>Since Joseph Newman has provided his explanations, I'd love to know your >>fundamental mechanical explanations for Fleming's Rule and Magnetic >>Attraction and Repulsion. >> >> > >And why is that Evan? > >I don't care about Joe's "explanations" and theories about his motor any >more than I care about Greg Watson's endless posts on why his SMOTS all work. > >Watson has never delivered a working SMOT, and Newman has never delivered a >working o/u motor. Let me know when he sends one to Puthoff & Little's lab. > >You don't need a theory to explain an non-existant effect. > >--Lynn Dear Lynn, Thanks for your comments. Over the years Joe has built many prototypes which operate in accordance with his technical process and have been attested to by scientists and engineers who have spoken out on his behalf. But, of course, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. You last sentence above is especially interesting to me. I was not aware that "Fleming's Rule" and "Magnetic Attraction and Repulsion" are, to quote you, "non-existent effects." I never realized until now that an "effect" could be "non-existent." Well, I guess one learns something every day. Thanks again, and Best regards, Evan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 19 12:41:04 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA29287; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 12:38:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 12:38:23 -0700 Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 12:40:32 -0700 From: Lynn Kurtz Subject: Re: Clarke-Hess PLUS battery test In-reply-to: X-Sender: kurtz imap2.asu.edu (Unverified) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <199809191939.MAA21910 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: <"0MAll3.0.F97.kW01s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22506 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 02:00 PM 9/19/98 -0600, you wrote: >You last sentence above is especially interesting to me. I was not aware >that "Fleming's Rule" and "Magnetic Attraction and Repulsion" are, to quote >you, "non-existent effects." I never realized until now that an "effect" >could be "non-existent." Well, I guess one learns something every day. > OK, let me say it more clearly. What I am asserting is non-existent is a delivered working SMOT and a delivered working o/u Newman motor. No working device, no theory of operation needed. --Lynn From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 19 15:20:06 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA06655; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 15:16:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 15:16:52 -0700 Message-ID: <19980919221740.18339.qmail hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.48.94.200] From: "Peter Aldo" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Joe and Evan ....Hee Hee Hee Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 15:17:39 PDT Resent-Message-ID: <"O5vQe.0.nd1.Jr21s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22507 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hello Evan and Joe, I have one word for both of you : BULLSHIT! Please stop wasting everyone's time. Yours Truly, Pete Aldo ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 19 15:24:41 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA14183; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 15:23:06 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 15:23:06 -0700 Message-ID: <011a01bde41c$2bcfd560$e7b4bfa8 default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Cc: "George" Subject: Re: High-Field ZPE Pumping (Water Capacitors) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 16:22:56 -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: <"8gRTy.0.RT3.Ax21s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22508 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex A water (or other polar fluid)capacitor can be made by coating double-sided printed circuit boards (PCBs) with a thin lacquer,and attaching hookup wire to one side for plus and the other for negative, thus making a multi-plate capacitor that can be immersed in water or such and high voltage applied without ionic (ohmic)conductivity (electrolysis) through the water. The boards, if the same size as microscope slides can be set a plastic slide box partially filled with H2O or D2O. Since C = k*eo*area/thickness, the water (k = 80) about a millimeter thick as opposed to the lacquer (k~= 2)insulation a fraction of a millimeter thick will form three capacitors of about the same value in series so that at a 120 volts or so the voltage across the water will be a goodly fraction of 120 volts, or whatever the applied voltage is. About all that is left is the calorimetry. :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 19 15:28:02 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA16633; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 15:27:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 15:27:07 -0700 Message-ID: <011f01bde41c$bc8b39a0$e7b4bfa8 default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Cc: "George" Subject: Re: Joe and Evan ....Hee Hee Hee Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 16:27:42 -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: <"ofJ7D1.0.p34.x-21s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22509 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Peter Aldo To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Saturday, September 19, 1998 4:19 PM Subject: Joe and Evan ....Hee Hee Hee Hey Pete, how you doing? It is better known as Bovine Feces in upper-class circles, or even crop/crap circles. :-) Best, Frederick > > >Hello Evan and Joe, > I have one word for both of you : BULLSHIT! >Please stop wasting everyone's time. > >Yours Truly, >Pete Aldo > > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 19 16:17:28 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA10764; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 16:16:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 16:16:20 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 18:26:17 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Pete .... Ho Ho Ho Resent-Message-ID: <"E6qPL3.0.zc2.wi31s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22511 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Hello Evan and Joe, > I have one word for both of you : BULLSHIT! >Please stop wasting everyone's time. > >Yours Truly, >Pete Aldo > > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Hi Pete. Thanks for your thoughtful and open-minded comments. Your bovine insight certainly qualifies you as an expert proponent of the subject. Warmest personal regards, Evan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 19 16:17:34 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA10693; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 16:16:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 16:16:11 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 18:26:13 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Clarke-Hess PLUS battery test Resent-Message-ID: <"EP12w.0.uc2.wi31s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22510 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >At 02:00 PM 9/19/98 -0600, you wrote: > >>You last sentence above is especially interesting to me. I was not aware >>that "Fleming's Rule" and "Magnetic Attraction and Repulsion" are, to quote >>you, "non-existent effects." I never realized until now that an "effect" >>could be "non-existent." Well, I guess one learns something every day. >> > >OK, let me say it more clearly. What I am asserting is non-existent is a >delivered working SMOT and a delivered working o/u Newman motor. No working >device, no theory of operation needed. > >--Lynn Dear Lynn, Thanks for your comments and clarification. I was just curious to know if _you_ had a fundamental mechanical explanation for Fleming's Rule and Magnetic Attraction and Repulsion. Thanks for answering my question. Best regards, Evan Soule' From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 19 17:09:48 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA01244; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 17:07:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 17:07:24 -0700 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 17:04:54 -0700 Subject: Re: High-Field ZPE Pumping in Capacitors and Inductors Message-ID: <19980919.170507.3526.1.tv juno.com> References: <024401bde379$220bf980$d4b4bfa8 default> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-8 From: tv juno.com (Tim Vaughan) Resent-Message-ID: <"xU35E.0.BJ.xS41s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22512 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Frederick, Please explain how High-Field ZPE Pumping would work. I wish to understand your principle. 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 Sat Sep 19 17:45:48 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA10211; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 17:44:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 17:44:04 -0700 Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 20:42:01 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Sending research to Stanford Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809192044_MC2-5A03-E42B compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"_c6N.0.PV2.J_41s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22513 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Evan Soule describes an inept attempt to market a machine: As a matter of fact at the beginning of the 1980s Joe did load his c. 800-lb prototype on a flatbed and travel to Washington, D.C. with Dr. Hastings in an attempt to have various federal agencies observe, examine, and test the technology. From the PTO to the NBS (and a few energy agencies in between) no one was interested. Sigh . . . Newman should not waste time trying to sell the machine to people who do not want to buy it. Please note the agenda I posted the other day: What value do I bring the customer? Why should anyone want to buy my product? Where do I find my customers? Who do I want to sell to? It was c. 1985 that Joe again traveled to Washington, D.C. Ah, so he learned nothing from his first trip. He repeated the same blunder, trying to sell to people who are not interested. And I suppose he was surprised at the outcome: This time with his 12,000 pound prototype (with a 750-pound magnetic rotor) on a flatbed truck to the Capitol Centre. He demonstrated the prototype . . . A variety of federal energy officials and government representatives were invited to attend as well as the national newsmedia. While I witnessed the often-jaundiced Capitol newsmedia giving him a "standing ovation" after the presentation by Joe and the physicists/engineers, not a single representative from the government attended. What does that experience teach you? Before you make this mistake a third time, think! You made the wrong presentation to the wrong audience in the wrong venue. No government representative attended because no government representative is interested, so in the future, do not try to sell the machine to government representatives. You must seek out customers. People like me, for example, who want your machine and who will pay ready cash. Find your customers, find out what they want, and sell it to them at a price you can live with. You sent a message to John Steck demanding a purchase order from Motorola. Obviously Steck was making an informal offer on his own, and obviously a major corporation is not going to issue a purchase order for a machine that everyone knows cannot exist. If you are going sit and wait for a Fortune 500 purchase order, or an endorsement from a government agency, you will wait until Hell freezes over. Instead of waiting passively or tilting at windmills, instead of chasing after pie-in-the-sky, you must take advantage of opportunities that present themselves here and now, starting with Earthtech. If the jaundiced Capital newsmedia applauded the kind of demonstration & presentation Newman usually puts on, that confirms my suspicion that they are technologically illiterate. Their applause means nothing. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 19 18:00:17 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA13836; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 17:59:19 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 17:59:19 -0700 Message-Id: <199809200059.TAA05073 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 19:59:17 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: The soul of tact?!? Resent-Message-ID: <"PoR4S.0._N3.cD51s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22515 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >To: Vortex > >Evan Soule writes: > > No doubt this is a comment upon which you will NOT act, but I challenge > you, Jed Rothwell, to call Joseph Newman and state to his face that "he > is a monster who has been indirectly killing 50,000 people a week to > satisfy his ego." But of course, I know you won't do this. > >It's a nuisance, but I'll print out my comments and mail them to Newman. ***{Jed, this is a bad mistake. What you are doing is extremely out of character, and wildly wrong. You need to focus on the science and see if you can obtain sufficient data to permit a reasoned assessment of whether his motor works. Conveying to Newman your opinions about what kind of person he is verges on the idiotic. Unless you have a "thought probe" planted in his brain, you cannot help but know vastly less about his character, motivations, and about the obstacles he has faced in bringing his product to market than he does. All your opinions on such topics are going to do is elicit a response of anger or contempt, and foreclose the possibility of your ever obtaining the kind of information which, as a science journalist, you need. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > . . . you will not state such an accusation to his ear over the > telephone -- let alone to his face. Now that REALLY would be something > I would like to see. I would LOVE --- L-O-V-E --- to see you say the > above to his face, in person. > >I do not like making telephone calls. I do not expect I will have an >opportunity to meet Newman, but if I ever do I will not hesitate to tell him >what I think. I was quite blunt with him when I called him the other day. In >polite language I told him repeatedly that his "demonstration" was a >meaningless farce. > >- Jed ***{Reasoned and constructive criticism is one thing; scathing personal attacks and ridicule are something else again. And it is precisely the latter description which fits the remarks which you are apparently now planning to mail off to Newman. Have you lost your mind, or what? --Mitchell Jones}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 19 18:00:28 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA13818; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 17:59:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 17:59:18 -0700 Message-Id: <199809200059.TAA05070 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 19:59:15 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: Joe and Evan ....Hee Hee Hee Resent-Message-ID: <"ikt-V3.0.hN3.bD51s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22514 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >-----Original Message----- >From: Peter Aldo >To: vortex-l eskimo.com >Date: Saturday, September 19, 1998 4:19 PM >Subject: Joe and Evan ....Hee Hee Hee > >Hey Pete, how you doing? It is better known as Bovine Feces in >upper-class circles, or even crop/crap circles. :-) > >Best, Frederick > > >> >> >>Hello Evan and Joe, >> I have one word for both of you : BULLSHIT! >>Please stop wasting everyone's time. >> >>Yours Truly, >>Pete Aldo >> >> >>______________________________________________________ >>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com >> >> ***{Would someone please explain to me what either of the above pair of disgusting, time-wasting, ad hominem posts have to do with real science? How is this sort of mindless tripe any different from the routine bowel movements that pass for conversation on sci.physics.fusion? How, indeed, are we to be sure that "Pete Aldo" and "Frederick Sparber" are not pseudonyms for Bill Snyder, Alan Dunsmuir, or some of the other blighted denizens of that worthless group? --Mitchell Jones}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 19 18:44:30 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA27391; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 18:41:26 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 18:41:26 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 20:51:27 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Sending research to Stanford Resent-Message-ID: <"mS8jG3.0.th6.6r51s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22516 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >To: Vortex > >Evan Soule describes an inept attempt to market a machine: > > As a matter of fact at the beginning of the 1980s Joe did load his c. > 800-lb prototype on a flatbed and travel to Washington, D.C. with Dr. > Hastings in an attempt to have various federal agencies observe, > examine, and test the technology. From the PTO to the NBS (and a few > energy agencies in between) no one was interested. > >Sigh . . . Newman should not waste time trying to sell the machine to people >who do not want to buy it. Please note the agenda I posted the other day: > >What value do I bring the customer? Why should anyone want to buy my product? > >Where do I find my customers? Who do I want to sell to? Dear Jed, Thanks for your comments. Inept or not, at least he "picked up the telephone" (figuratively-speaking) and went to Washington, D.C. If only you had been there to give him valuable recommendations. > > It was c. 1985 that Joe again traveled to Washington, D.C. > >Ah, so he learned nothing from his first trip. He repeated the same blunder, >trying to sell to people who are not interested. And I suppose he was >surprised at the outcome: No, the first time he was sincerely endeavoring to meet with individuals working within the political state. The second time he went to Washington, D.C. physically display his technology (not operate in "secrecy" as it was incorrectly suggested) in the 'heartland' of American media for the purpose of letting others (maybe even a few Jed Rothwell types) know about the technology. The invitation to politicians and bureaucrats was extended as a matter of form. Their non-attendance was not surprising. > > This time with his 12,000 pound prototype (with a 750-pound magnetic > rotor) on a flatbed truck to the Capitol Centre. He demonstrated the > prototype . . . A variety of federal energy officials and government > representatives were invited to attend as well as the national > newsmedia. While I witnessed the often-jaundiced Capitol newsmedia > giving him a "standing ovation" after the presentation by Joe and the > physicists/engineers, not a single representative from the government > attended. > >What does that experience teach you? Before you make this mistake a third >time, think! You made the wrong presentation to the wrong audience in the >wrong venue. No government representative attended because no government >representative is interested, so in the future, do not try to sell the machine >to government representatives. You must seek out customers. People like me, >for example, who want your machine and who will pay ready cash. Find your >customers, find out what they want, and sell it to them at a price you can >live with. You sent a message to John Steck demanding a purchase order from >Motorola. Obviously Steck was making an informal offer on his own, and >obviously a major corporation is not going to issue a purchase order for a >machine that everyone knows cannot exist. If you are going sit and wait for a >Fortune 500 purchase order, or an endorsement from a government agency, you >will wait until Hell freezes over. Instead of waiting passively or tilting at >windmills, instead of chasing after pie-in-the-sky, you must take advantage of >opportunities that present themselves here and now, starting with Earthtech. > >If the jaundiced Capital newsmedia applauded the kind of demonstration & >presentation Newman usually puts on, that confirms my suspicion that they are >technologically illiterate. Their applause means nothing. > >- Jed I'd happily settle for someone receiving applause from technologically illiterate newsmedia rather than inaccurate and/or misinformed statements from someone such as yourself. I enjoy the manner in which you state that I sent a message to John Steck "demanding" a purchase order from Motorola. I don't recall _demanding_ anything from Mr. Steck. Joe made an recommendation to John --- whether he chooses to pursue it or not is obviously his choice. And, Joe is not "sit(ting) and wait(ing) for a Fortune 500 purchase order" -- you are certainly entitled to this opinion, but (in my opinion) it is as inaccurate as other comments you have made. Joseph Newman has (as stated before) repeatedly demonstrated his technology before audiences comprised of individuals other than politicians and bureaucrats. If you did not happen to be at the correct place and time to see it for yourself --- that's the way it works out, Jed.... Of course, one apparently doesn't need to worry about you contacting and speaking with Joe directly to offer him your valuable recommendations. Best regards, Evan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 19 19:20:49 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA03595; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 19:19:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 19:19:41 -0700 Message-ID: <016701bde43d$38324b00$e7b4bfa8 default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Cc: "George" Subject: Re: High-Field ZPE Pumping in Capacitors and Inductors Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 20:19:43 -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: <"bvzt13.0.0u.yO61s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22518 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Tim Vaughan To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Saturday, September 19, 1998 6:09 PM Subject: Re: High-Field ZPE Pumping in Capacitors and Inductors Tim wrote: >Hi Frederick, > >Please explain how High-Field ZPE Pumping would work. > >I wish to understand your principle. > >Tim Vaughan I'm not glad you asked, Tim, :-) However: Consider a lone hydrogen atom (electron-proton) in a vacuum "matchbox". Now you move the box and the atom strikes a side causing the EM field of the electron in effect to collide with the EM field of the proton,which causes the 3 Quarks in the proton to donate a slight amount of mass to the electron,both change mass/radius in accordance with, R = k*q^2/Eo. But Nature has Fixed values of R, ie., n*Re*Alpha^(+/-)n' where Alpha is the "fine structure constant" 0.00729729 and Re is the radius of the electron, 2.81E-15 meters, n = 1,2,3..., n'= 0,1,2... So, as I see it ZPE IS NOT a bunch of energy waves permeating the vacuum, but a PROPERTY of the VACUUM that restores R in the above equation to it's NATURAL Value, Thus Mass/Energy is held constant except for collisions. So when you collide electrons, quarks,atoms or molecules the collision energy is conserved with the collision momentum PLUS the "free energy" dE = h/dt that the vacuum property "ZPE" compensates for the loss of. Illegal sentence? :-) So, you have collisions from trillions of ev that can build galaxies, down to "CF" thermal collisions that give you"free energy" gains of x percent above what you invested when you "shook the matchbox". Thus, conceivably,if you use High-Fields to jiggle the hydrogenous atoms/molecules, you are in effect shaking the matchbox, aren't you? Regards, Frederick > >( 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 Sat Sep 19 19:20:55 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA03872; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 19:19:53 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 19:19:53 -0700 Message-ID: <36045989.668F earthlink.net> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 20:25:29 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rmforall earthlink.net, Vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Y2K: Economist: networks 9.19.98 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------787715EE1633" Resent-Message-ID: <"A5QJP1.0.9y.9P61s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22519 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. --------------787715EE1633 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://www.economist.com/editorial/freeforall/19-9-98/bug5.html --------------787715EE1633 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="bug5.html" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="bug5.html" Content-Base: "http://www.economist.com/editorial/fre eforall/19-9-98/bug5.html" Survey article


SURVEY   THE MILLENNIUM BUG

Bare essentials
Further Reading:

Search archive
    The networks that keep an economy working
 
ALL industries are important; but some are more important than others. Businesses need power, water, communications, transport and finance. All these depend disproportionately on networks and therefore tend to emphasise reliability and continuity. Power g eneration, for instance, usually has a margin of built-in spare capacity so that if one generator shuts down, others can fill the gap. But, once the pressure on a network exceeds the safety margin, a collapse at one point may feed through progressively to others. Networks thus offer a way to share risks—but to spread them, too.

These key businesses also depend disproportionately on IT. How far they have got with their millennium preparations varies enormously from country to country, but broadly speaking finance seems to have made most progress; air transpor t, telecommunications and energy come next; and water and surface transport bring up the rear.

With power, the main concern, at least in the rich countries, is the distribution network rather than generators or nuclear plants. In the United States, Merrill Lynch frets that “the problem could be worse than currently known”: too little info rmation is available to judge, and responsibility for the electricity-distribution network has been blurred by the advent of competition. In Europe, where countries trade electricity with each other, the European Commission fears that some countries may b e basing their contingency plans on shutting off exports.

Water may be an even bigger problem. Companies easily forget that if the lavatories will not flush, the business usually cannot operate. Where water has been privatised, its new owners have often upgraded their IT, but in countries wh ere water remains state-owned, operators may be further behind. As with power, embedded systems are a particular headache.

Because the millennium bug is not really a “bug” in the sense of a virus, there is no risk that communications networks will cross-infect each other. For the main telephone networks and the large telecommunications companies in rich countries, i t is likely to be business as usual on the big day. But smaller and middle-sized companies, even in the United States, may not do so well. “There are some 1,400 of them, and some are probably in stellar shape, but some are doing nothing,” says M ichael Powell, a commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission.

Unlike the networks that distribute power and water, the telecommunications network is global. That means carriers in the rich countries have a business interest in the readiness of their opposite numbers elsewhere. A survey of carriers in 113 countries b y the American State Department in March found that fewer than half expected to be millennium-ready in time.

But will you fly?

Airlines also have an interest in what happens around the world. They, more than any other industry, are under pressure from their insurers. IATA plans to publish a “cartography of Year 2000” by mid-1999, highlighting potent ially hazardous flying zones and airports. Established carriers will simply avoid them. That, coupled with the fact that aircraft on international flights are made by a relatively small number of well-organised companies, should ensure that international air travel will be one of the safer ways to get about in the early days of the new millennium.

It may, however, be slow and inconvenient for a while. At Sydney airport, Varina Nissen, head of corporate relations, points out that, if check-in for a flight has to be done manually, the average time required at rush hour rises from 20 to 45 minutes. Th at has knock-on effects on the number of people in the terminal building, on parking, baggage-handling and ultimately departure times. For rich-world airlines, the main worry may be air-traffic control in middle-income countries, together with a host of n iggling details: will they be able to refuel the flight, or settle the bill for the crew’s accommodation? If not, they will not fly to that destination.

Financial institutions realised early on that they were exposed to three different sorts of risk. Their own systems might give trouble; the electronic links that transmit money, financial instruments and information might not work; and most important of a ll, their borrowers might get into a mess, creating a counterparty credit risk. That means banks, along with insurers, have a key role in coaxing other companies into taking action.

Banks have announced the biggest Year 2000 budgets outside the public sector to date (see chart 6). The rough rule of thumb is that they will spend $1m for every $1 billion of assets. Financial institutions are not only more dependent on information techn ology than any other industry, they are also more tightly regulated. Edward Kelley, a governor of the Federal Reserve Board, which has visited 13,000 financial institutions, says that “well over 90% are well along towards ensuring compliance, and the 4-6% not as yet where they should be are being watched intensively.”


picture

Once big banks and financial institutions take the issue seriously, they begin to put pressure on others. Thus SWIFT, the global financial communications network, is imposing tests on its 6,000-or-so members around the world; Visa is pushing its 22,000 member banks not just to make their own systems compliant but also to look at the terminals, stocks and suppliers of the merchants they deal with. Bigger banks are plying their counterparties with questionnaires. The implicit threat tha t they might restrict credit is likely to spread the message more effectively than any government campaign.

Here, as in so many other areas, large American institutions seem to be ahead of the pack. “The IT culture is stronger among managers than in Europe, especially in banks,” explains Samuel Theodore of Moody’s Investor Se rvices. “And the drive has come from regulators, who in particular tend to be more familiar with IT than regulators elsewhere.” This has also prompted large European banks with a presence in the American market to start work earlier than others in Europe.

In finance, the systemic risks that might arise from one big collapse have attracted the attention of the Bank for International Settlements, which has been prodding central banks to take action. They have a role not just as regulators, but also as manage rs of their economies. Both the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England, for instance, are deciding what to do if half a dozen banks were to find that they could not settle their accounts at the end of the day. They are also trying to estimate how much ex tra money a nervous economy is likely to want to have in circulation on the eve of the millennium: the Fed plans to add $50 billion to the government’s usual $150 billion stock of dollar bills.

Undoubtedly financial institutions will take cover as the millennium approaches. Tanya Beder of Capital Market Risk Advisers in New York, a specialist in risk management, expects big fund managers to stop their year-end trading by December 15th next year, or at least run it down. Others are already planning to rearrange their portfolios, moving cash flows on loans out of the period from mid-December to the end of the first quarter of 2000. The main economic threat from the bug will be its effect on financ ial confidence.

 

--------------787715EE1633-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 19 20:17:25 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA01806; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 19:14:05 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 19:14:05 -0700 Message-ID: <3604582B.299C earthlink.net> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 20:19:39 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rmforall earthlink.net, Vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Y2K: Economist: world survey 9.19.98 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------24876B413B6" Resent-Message-ID: <"D3bhj3.0.7S.jJ61s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22517 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. --------------24876B413B6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://www.economist.com/editorial/freeforall/19-9-98/bug4.html --------------24876B413B6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="bug4.html" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="bug4.html" Content-Base: "http://www.economist.com/editorial/fre eforall/19-9-98/bug4.html" Survey article


SURVEY   THE MILLENNIUM BUG

Are you ready?
Further Reading:

Search archive
    Many are not, least of all the medium-sized
 
THE big question is: how bad will it be? Will the millennium bug result in mere disruption, in dislocation or in disaster? It is fairly easy to see who is spending heavily on bug-squashing, and who began the task early. It is harder to be sure w hether those who started late or are spending little are doing so because they have less need to act or because they made a mistake.

The consultancies were the first to try to work out who had done what, and at what cost. The Gartner Group surveys 15,000 companies around the world every three months and ranks countries and companies on a five-point scale from “preliminary activity ” to “fully compliant”. Lou Marcoccio, the ebullient director of its Year 2000 effort, claims that a year ago, 50% of the world’s companies had not even begun work on the problem; now the share of laggards has fallen to 23%. The United States and Australia are in the lead, he says; Canada, Britain, Israel and Sweden are six months behind; France and Italy six to eight months behind; Japan a year; and Germany a year to 18 months. Many large companies and other bodies in Eastern Europe, India and much of Asia and South America have started only in the past three months.

Cap Gemini, another consultancy, compiles a “Millennium Index” based on interviews with 1,100 firms in 11 OECD countries. In April it published findings broadly comparable with Gartner’s, with America in the lead and Fr ance and Germany trailing Britain. But some of the results are baffling. For instance, the Gemini survey also suggested that 1% of companies in France and 74% of those in Germany would not complete their Year 2000 work on time. Such figures are hard to sq uare with Gemini’s finding that Year 2000 work will account for 90% of annual IT budgets in Germany and only 20% in France. Does that mean the French are wildly underestimating their problems? Or that Germany faces the bigge r task?

One trouble with measurement is that those who know most are not disinterested parties. Computer consultants have an incentive to say that not enough is being done, whereas the companies themselves want to play down the problem lest shareholders take frig ht. And their IT departments, notorious for failing to deliver on time or on budget, naturally assure them that everything is under control. “One of the biggest problems I had with project managers,” growls Bert Berende, who once bought computers for the American government, “was that the project was always on time until it was late. A 100-day project was on time for 99 days.”

Another problem is the absence of an agreed baseline. Do you just count lines of code, or do you devise a more complicated formula? With embedded systems, do you count individual chips, or the systems in which they are integrated, or components? Nor is there is an agreed measure of compliance; and if an organisation has not really begun to tackle its Year 2000 problems, it may not appreciate how far it is from the finishing line.

Sources of information are starting to build up. Merrill Lynch, a stockbroker, published a bumper special report in July, signalling the arrival of the Year 2000 as something that investors cared about. Some regulatory authorities, such as America’s Federal Reserve Board and Britain’s Ofwat, the regulator for the private water companies, are now scrutinising their industries for compliance. Several stock exchanges, including America’s Securities and Exchange Commission and the Australian an d New Zealand stock exchanges, now insist on the disclosure of Year 2000 information.

As more and more companies ask their key business partners whether they will be ready on time, some are having to employ extra staff to deal with such inquiries. In a few cases, trade bodies—such as the Air Transportation Association, which represent s America’s airlines, and IATA, which does a similar job internationally—have taken on the task centrally, and are building up a database of the replies. The British Bankers’ Association is devising a standard questionn aire.

Middle muddle

All this activity has produced agreement on two points. First, survey after survey picks up the middle-sized as most at risk, be they countries, cities, hospitals or factories. Second, only a small minority of countries or companies will complete the task before the millennium. That makes it essential to set priorities and draw up contingency plans.

Medium-sized companies certainly face special problems. They cannot get away with just replacing their PC from the local shop, yet they lack the resources to tackle this sprawling managerial task. Working without an IT department, with customised systems developed by small software houses, with enough computer-controlled machines to be a headache and with quite a lot of links to other computer systems, such companies are likely to face particular disruption.

“We think only one in four companies with under 500 employees is well down the track,” says Gwynneth Flower, who runs Action 2000, a government-financed task force in Britain. In Korea, a government survey in March found that 34% of small and me dium-sized companies planned to do nothing. The Australian Bankers’ Association reported, also in March, that only a quarter of small and medium-sized firms had taken action, most of it inadequate. More than 40% had no plans. Even in the United State s, a survey in May by Wells Fargo, a bank, found that half the small-business owners who knew of the Year 2000 had no plans to act.

Muddled though middle-sized organisations clearly are, some of their big brothers could yet turn out to be in more of a mess. “Bigger companies have (pro rata) a much bigger problem than smaller ones, and testing is particularly difficult for them,&# 148; says Mr Guenier, who heads Taskforce 2000, a campaigning body. “Most smaller businesses have still got time to fix the worst of it. A large business that has fallen behind does not.”

As for governments, they have generally been slower than companies to measure their progress and set priorities. Only in the United States are Federal government agencies being monitored week by week, and repeatedly hauled before the two houses of Congres s to testify. Senator Bob Bennett, a Republican from Utah who chairs a Senate committee on the Year 2000, has become a scourge of the unready. Congressional chivvying has revealed huge differences among federal agencies (see table 4). The Defence Departme nt, plagued with lots of elderly mainframes, ingenious but arcane computer languages and embedded systems in almost every piece of equipment, has made disturbingly slow progress. The Federal Aviation Administration, with a batch of venerable IBM mainframes, began late and is still behind schedule.


picture

On the other hand, the Social Security Administration has already started an elaborate programme of tests with all the other computer systems with which it interconnects. The SSA also wins pats on the back from Congress for its contin gency plans. It has been working out how to continue to pay benefits even if telecoms or power break down.

All this emphasis on measuring progress may explain why the federal government seems to be even further ahead of most other governments than private-sector America is ahead of corporate rivals elsewhere. But American government also has by far the biggest problem. On the basis of (admittedly elderly and controversial) figures, public-administration employees in the United States are seven times as likely to have access to a PC or terminal as their counterparts in Britain, and almost 2 6 times as likely as public employees in Japan (see chart 5).


picture

Beyond central government, progress is motley and mediocre. Among Japan’s municipalities, says MITI, the industry ministry, only 30% have even started work. In June a report by Britain’s Audit Commission found that fewer tha n one-third of local authorities and National Health Service bodies had even developed strategies for dealing with the problem, and fewer than 10% had begun to think seriously about contingency plans. Health care is a particular concern in many countries: perennially short of cash, increasingly dependent on information technology and on processes controlled by embedded systems—but notoriously short of IT expertise, or managers who understand the issue. Wise citizens will avoid fa lling ill over New Year 1999.

 

--------------24876B413B6-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 19 20:36:29 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA28632; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 20:35:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 20:35:18 -0700 Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 18:29:11 -0700 From: Lynn Kurtz Subject: Re: Clarke-Hess PLUS battery test In-reply-to: X-Sender: kurtz imap2.asu.edu (Unverified) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <199809200128.SAA01263 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: <"SrL0P.0.I_6.rV71s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22520 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 06:26 PM 9/19/98 -0600, you wrote: >I was just curious to know if _you_ had a fundamental mechanical >explanation for Fleming's Rule and Magnetic Attraction and Repulsion. > I am curious to know if _you_ understand the Toeplitz Theorem and the Hausdorff moment problem for C-1 summability of weakly convergent sequences in Banach Spaces. --Lynn From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 19 21:06:59 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA03935; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 21:04:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 21:04:03 -0700 To: vortex-L eskimo.com Cc: freenrg-L eskimo.com, sapogin@cnf.madi.msk.su, JNaudin509@aol.com Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 20:32:03 -0700 Subject: PAGD and Cooling Effect Message-ID: <19980919.210111.3526.4.tv juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-3,5-9,11-12,14,16,18-20,23,25,27,29,31,34-40,42, 44,46-48,51-56 From: tv juno.com (Tim Vaughan) Resent-Message-ID: <"1mQZ31.0.Az.ow71s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22521 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I was pleased to see the announcement that Dr Paulo Correa would giving an update on his progress with the Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge (PAGD) device at the Cold Fusion and New Energy Symposium on Oct. 11. There has been no change on his web page for over a year but I presume this announcement means Paulo and Alexandra are progressing toward their goal of practical application of this startling discovery. Does anyone have any current news about the Correas ? Also I have heard no comment about the article in Infinite Energy magazine "The Theory of Excess Energy in a PAGD Reactor (Correa Reactor)" by Prof. Lev G. Sagopin. Although Prof. Sapogin explains his idea in a different way that is not as easy to understand (for me at least), I think he has essentially a more rigorous way to describe a transient electron coherence, but in a gas plasma instead of in the "solid state plasma" of metal crystal lattice. Dr. Sapogin is trying to explain a transient energy gain in an electrical discharge (PAGD) occurring through a gas plasma. I was attempting to explain the temperature drops observed in a large Newman type coil of wire by Leon Dragone (1987) and J. Naudin which is an abnormal (non Joule heating) type of discharge through a very long "solid state plasma". Even if these ideas are not correct, they at least suggest a possible mechanism for a kind of "Maxwell's Demon" which should be considered before completely dismissing the possibility of cohering ambient fluctuation energy as a macroscopic "violation" of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. see J. Naudin's web page: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jlnaudin/html/NewMcool.htm I wish people would overlook Joseph Newman's quirks and focus on some of the apparent anomalies that may have been observed with his coils. The cooling effect, if it really exists, is an anomaly which can be quite easily measured and confirmed. I have yet to see an adequate conventional explanation for this. It certainly needs more experimental confirmation. Also the Correa PAGD is a very well documented but not independently confirmed observation (as far as I know). It seems very worthy of more attention. 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 Sat Sep 19 22:09:31 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA26765; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 22:06:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 22:06:32 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 00:16:35 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Clarke-Hess PLUS battery test Resent-Message-ID: <"7nIye3.0.xX6.Mr81s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22522 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >At 06:26 PM 9/19/98 -0600, you wrote: > >>I was just curious to know if _you_ had a fundamental mechanical >>explanation for Fleming's Rule and Magnetic Attraction and Repulsion. >> > > >I am curious to know if _you_ understand the Toeplitz Theorem and the >Hausdorff moment problem for C-1 summability of weakly convergent sequences >in Banach Spaces. > >--Lynn Dear Lynn, Thanks for your inquiry. No, I don't understand abstract analysis, and I was hoping to learn your fundamental mechanical explanation for Fleming's Rule and Magnetic Attraction and Repulsion. As astrophysicist A. J. Galambos also observed, "everything in the universe is related to everything else --- it is simply our challenge to discover how" ---- and, since you presented the subject, I am curious to receive your explanation as to how the Toeplitz Theorem relates to a fundamental mechanical explanation for Fleming's Rule and Magnetic Attraction and Repulsion. Best regards, Evan Soule' From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 00:35:20 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA17327; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 00:32:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 00:32:37 -0700 Message-ID: <3604AF73.33F26136 gte.net> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 00:32:09 -0700 From: Bob Horst X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Minn Kota and Newman References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"L6n5y1.0.fE4.L-A1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22523 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Evan Soule wrote: . > In the latest Edition of his book, Joe has reported the theft of his > technology by MinnKota Corp. who have made a fortune employing his designs > in their trolling motors. He has stated that Dr. Roger Hastings (who has > been a consultant to MinnKota) has been the conduit of information to > MinnKota. > > What I have found curious is that MinnKota would 1) suddenly began > advertising their product as "COOL POWER" (a motor that runs cool) and 2) > simultaneously change the nomenclature of their trolling motors from > "horsepower" to "thrust" --- at the same time that Joe has stated they > began using his technology in their products Well, I looked up Minn Kota on the web, and found this site: http://www.northlandmarine.com/MinnMaxxumBowMnt.htm#Anchor##MaxxumFootControl They do advertise "cool power" and claim that the "Maximizer" delivers five times more power on a single battery charge. The cheapest one advertised is $454. If they really stole Newmans ideas and really get 5x more power than a normal motor, I assume that this motor should be OU (given that a standard motor would be more than 20% efficient). How about this proposal: If you are certain this motor is OU, all of Vortex together scrapes up the $454 to buy one of these motors and has Scott test it. We make a wager -- if the motor is not OU, you agree not to post anything more about Newman on Vortex. If it is OU, you and everyone connected with this technology can write your own ticket to capitalize on the technology and make tons of money. Willing to take the bet? Newman should not be complaing about this company. Surely he does not expect to manufacture every electric motor used in the whole world. Giving up the trolling motor market to validate the concept does not sound like a bad deal to me. There should many billions of dollars left for him in selling into all other markets for electric motors. -- Bob Horst From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 01:20:05 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA24241; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 01:18:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 01:18:24 -0700 Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 04:14:34 -0400 From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Sending research to Stanford Sender: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" Message-ID: <199809200419_MC2-5A0C-BBB3 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"Te-W5.0.Yw5.FfB1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22524 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Evan, >> Over the years he has used the materials from his earlier prototypes to construct more advanced prototypes. << And it seems that he no longer has even 1 fully operational, fully instrumented model. What does Joe live on - could it be entirely on the sale of his book - if that's not a too delicate question? His MO is so much a copy of Stan Meyer's that one has to wonder if his product falls into the same category. In particular - always just about to, but never quite makes it into commercial production. I wonder if you can clear up another query of mine - are you in any way an agent of Joe's or do you act in any capacity on behalf of him or any of his organisation(s)? If not, why do you bother with this list other than a 'fan' with no influence on the 'star'? Regards, Norman Horwood From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 01:21:17 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA24256; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 01:18:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 01:18:25 -0700 Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 04:14:32 -0400 From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: The soul of tact?!? Sender: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" Message-ID: <199809200419_MC2-5A0C-BBB2 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"7uXN43.0.uw5.GfB1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22525 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Evan, >> Joe's fax is at his Colorado address. At the present time he is in Phoenix. << Is it on the same phone line as you quoted earlier, and does he have to manually switch it to receive or is it always on auto-receive? If not on that line, please let Vortex have its #. TIA Norman Horwood From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 04:42:13 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA17756; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 04:41:31 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 04:41:31 -0700 Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 05:43:04 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Joe and Evan ....Hee Hee Hee In-Reply-To: <199809200059.TAA05070 smtp.jump.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"j1L8H1.0.ML4.gdE1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22526 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 19 Sep 1998, Mitchell Jones wrote: ***{Would someone please explain to me what either of the above pair of disgusting, time-wasting, ad hominem posts have to do with real science? How is this sort of mindless tripe any different from the routine bowel movements that pass for conversation on sci.physics.fusion? How, indeed, are we to be sure that "Pete Aldo" and "Frederick Sparber" are not pseudonyms for Bill Snyder, Alan Dunsmuir, or some of the other blighted denizens of that worthless group? --Mitchell Jones}*** ------------ Agreed Gentleman, Sirs, Forks on the LEFT, knive(s) & spoons in our laps (err napkins! in our ~laps~ that is :) = RIGHT? Respectfully; Let's eat! -=se=- steve (we're digging & cutting to the BONE here) ekwall From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 07:13:06 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA09088; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 07:12:04 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 07:12:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <36050C28.55D5 sprintmail.com> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 08:07:36 -0600 From: "Frederick J. Sparber" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com CC: fjsparb sprintmail.com Subject: OFF TOPIC, HOT FUSION X-URL: file:///C:\EB/_1.htm#first_hit Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------597455F18FF" Resent-Message-ID: <"lUs2D2.0.wD2.pqG1s" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22527 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. --------------597455F18FF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit file:///C:\EB/_1.htm#first_hit --------------597455F18FF Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="_1.htm"
Britannica CD Help The Technology of War: MODERN WEAPONS AND WEAPON SYSTEMS: Nuclear weapons: THE DEVELOPMENT OF FUSION WEAPONS ... continued from

The Technology of War

Table of Contents

THE DEVELOPMENT OF FUSION WEAPONS

The United States.
U.S. research on thermonuclear weapons started from a conversation in September 1941 between Fermi and Teller. Fermi wondered if the explosion of a fission weapon could ignite a mass of deuterium sufficiently to begin thermonuclear fusion. (Deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen with one proton and one neutron in the nucleus--i.e., twice the normal weight--makes up 0.015 percent of natural hydrogen and can be separated in quantity by electrolysis and distillation. It exists in liquid form only below about -417{degree} F, or -250{degree} C.) Teller undertook to analyze the thermonuclear processes in some detail and presented his findings to a group of theoretical physicists convened by Oppenheimer in Berkeley in the summer of 1942. One participant, Emil Konopinski, suggested that the use of tritium be investigated as a thermonuclear fuel, an insight that would later be important to most designs. (Tritium, an isotope of hydrogen with one proton and two neutrons in the nucleus--i.e., three times the normal weight--does not exist in nature except in trace amounts, but it can be made by irradiating lithium in a nuclear reactor. It is radioactive and has a half-life of 12.5 years.)

As a result of these discussions the participants concluded that a weapon based on thermonuclear fusion was possible. When the Los Alamos laboratory was being planned, a small research program on the Super, as it came to be known, was included. Several conferences were held at the laboratory in late April 1943 to acquaint the new staff members with the existing state of knowledge and the direction of the research program. The consensus was that modest thermonuclear research should be pursued along theoretical lines. Teller proposed more intensive investigations, and some work did proceed, but the more urgent task of developing a fission weapon always took precedence--a necessary prerequisite for a hydrogen bomb in any event.

In the fall of 1945, after the success of the atomic bomb and the end of World War II, the future of the Manhattan Project, including Los Alamos and the other facilities, was unclear. Government funding was severely reduced, many scientists returned to universities and to their careers, and contractor companies turned to other pursuits. The Atomic Energy Act, signed by President Truman on Aug. 1, 1946, established the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), replacing the Manhattan Engineer District, and gave it civilian authority over all aspects of atomic energy, including oversight of nuclear warhead research, development, testing, and production.

From April 18 to 20, 1946, a conference led by Teller at Los Alamos reviewed the status of the Super. At that time it was believed that a fission weapon could be used to ignite one end of a cylinder of liquid deuterium and that the resulting thermonuclear reaction would self-propagate to the other end. This conceptual design was known as the "classical Super."

One of the two central design problems was how to ignite the thermonuclear fuel. It was recognized early on that a mixture of deuterium and tritium theoretically could be ignited at lower temperatures and would have a faster reaction time than deuterium alone, but the question of how to achieve ignition remained unresolved. The other problem, equally difficult, was whether and under what conditions burning might proceed in thermonuclear fuel once ignition had taken place. An exploding thermonuclear weapon involves many extremely complicated, interacting physical and nuclear processes. The speeds of the exploding materials can be up to millions of feet per second, temperatures and pressures are greater than those at the centre of the Sun, and time scales are billionths of a second. To resolve whether the "classical Super" or any other design would work required accurate numerical models of these processes--a formidable task, since the computers that would be needed to perform the calculations were still under development. Also, the requisite fission triggers were not yet ready, and the limited resources of Los Alamos could not support an extensive program.

On Sept. 23, 1949, Truman announced that "we have evidence that within recent weeks an atomic explosion occurred in the U.S.S.R." This first Soviet test stimulated an intense, four-month, secret debate about whether to proceed with the hydrogen bomb project. One of the strongest statements of opposition against proceeding with a hydrogen bomb program came from the General Advisory Committee (GAC) of the AEC, chaired by Oppenheimer. In their report of Oct. 30, 1949, the majority recommended "strongly against" initiating an all-out effort, believing "that extreme dangers to mankind inherent in the proposal wholly outweigh any military advantages that could come from this development." "A super bomb," they went on to say, "might become a weapon of genocide." They believed that "a super bomb should never be produced." Nevertheless, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the State and Defense departments, the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, and a special subcommittee of the National Security Council all recommended proceeding with the hydrogen bomb. Truman announced on Jan. 31, 1950, that he had directed the AEC to continue its work on all forms of atomic weapons, including hydrogen bombs. In March, Los Alamos went on a six-day workweek.

In the months that followed Truman's decision, the prospect of actually being able to build a hydrogen bomb became less and less likely. The mathematician Stanislaw M. Ulam, with the assistance of Cornelius J. Everett, had undertaken calculations of the amount of tritium that would be needed for ignition of the classical Super. Their results were spectacular and, to Teller, discouraging: the amount needed was estimated to be enormous. In the summer of 1950 more detailed and thorough calculations by other members of the Los Alamos Theoretical Division confirmed Ulam's estimates. This meant that the cost of the Super program would be prohibitive.

Also in the summer of 1950, Fermi and Ulam calculated that liquid deuterium probably would not burn--that is, there would probably be no self-sustaining and propagating reaction. Barring surprises, therefore, the theoretical work to 1950 indicated that every important assumption regarding the viability of the classical Super was wrong. If success was to come, it would have to be accomplished by other means.

The other means became apparent between February and April 1951, following breakthroughs achieved at Los Alamos. One breakthrough was the recognition that the burning of thermonuclear fuel would be more efficient if a high density were achieved throughout the fuel prior to raising its temperature, rather than the classical Super approach of just raising the temperature in one area and then relying on the propagation of thermonuclear reactions to heat the remaining fuel. A second breakthrough was the recognition that these conditions--high compression and high temperature throughout the fuel--could be achieved by containing and converting the radiation from an exploding fission weapon and then using this energy to compress a separate component containing the thermonuclear fuel.

The major figures in these breakthroughs were Ulam and Teller. In December 1950 Ulam had proposed a new fission weapon design, using the mechanical shock of an ordinary fission bomb to compress to a very high density a second fissile core. (This two-stage fission device was conceived entirely independently of the thermonuclear program, its aim being to use fissionable materials more economically.) Early in 1951 Ulam went to see Teller and proposed that the two-stage approach be used to compress and ignite a thermonuclear secondary. Teller suggested radiation implosion, rather than mechanical shock, as the mechanism for compressing the thermonuclear fuel in the second stage. On March 9, 1951, Teller and Ulam presented a report containing both alternatives, entitled "On Heterocatalytic Detonations I. Hydrodynamic Lenses and Radiation Mirrors." A second report, dated April 4, by Teller, included some extensive calculations by Frederic de Hoffmann and elaborated on how a thermonuclear bomb could be constructed. The two-stage radiation implosion design proposed by these reports, which led to the modern concept of thermonuclear weapons, became known as the Teller-Ulam configuration.

It was immediately clear to all scientists concerned that these new ideas--achieving a high density in the thermonuclear fuel by compression using a fission primary--provided for the first time a firm basis for a fusion weapon. Without hesitation, Los Alamos adopted the new program. Gordon Dean, chairman of the AEC, convened a meeting at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, hosted by Oppenheimer, on June 16-18, 1951, where the new idea was discussed. In attendance were the GAC members, AEC commissioners, and key scientists and consultants from Los Alamos and Princeton. The participants were unanimously in favour of active and rapid pursuit of the Teller-Ulam principle.

Just prior to the conference, on May 8 at Enewetak atoll in the western Pacific, a test explosion called George had successfully used a fission bomb to ignite a small quantity of deuterium and tritium. The original purpose of George had been to confirm the burning of these thermonuclear fuels (about which there had never been any doubt), but with the new conceptual understanding contributed by Teller and Ulam, the test provided the bonus of successfully demonstrating radiation implosion.

In September 1951, Los Alamos proposed a test of the Teller-Ulam concept for November 1952. Engineering of the device, nicknamed Mike, began in October 1951, but unforeseen difficulties required a major redesign of the experiment in March 1952. The Mike device weighed 82 tons, owing in part to cryogenic (low-temperature) refrigeration equipment necessary to keep the deuterium in liquid form. It was successfully detonated during Operation Ivy, on Nov. 1, 1952 (local time), at Enewetak. The explosion achieved a yield of 10.4 million tons of TNT, or 500 times larger than the Nagasaki bomb, and it produced a crater 6,240 feet in diameter and 164 feet deep.

With the Teller-Ulam configuration proved, deliverable thermonuclear weapons were designed and initially tested during Operation Castle in 1954. The first test of the series, conducted on March 1, 1954 (local time), was called Bravo. It used solid lithium deuteride rather than liquid deuterium and produced a yield of 15 megatons, 1,000 times as large as the Hiroshima bomb. Here the principal thermonuclear reaction was the fusion of deuterium and tritium. The tritium was produced in the weapon itself by neutron bombardment of the lithium-6 isotope in the course of the fusion reaction. Using lithium deuteride instead of liquid deuterium eliminated the need for cumbersome cryogenic equipment.

With completion of Castle, the feasibility of lightweight, solid-fuel thermonuclear weapons was proved. Vast quantities of tritium would not be needed after all. New possibilities for adaptation of thermonuclear weapons to various kinds of missiles began to be explored.

continued ...

Copyright (c) 1995 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Show Index links. --------------597455F18FF-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 08:01:39 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA18663; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 07:58:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 07:58:51 -0700 Message-ID: <01e001bde4a7$43e9a960$e7b4bfa8 default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Cc: "George" Subject: OFF TOPIC, HOT FUSION (OR ZPE PUMPING?) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 08:59:23 -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: <"h6awR3.0.SZ4.gWH1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22528 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: See what I mean, Hal? :-) The plethora of gammas from the fission "trigger" create an enormous amount of Compton Scattering in the Electrons-Hydrogen as well as compression to a kg/cm^3 (about the density of a Pulsar/Neutron Star, twice that would be a Black Hole).Then the ZPE Pumping dE = h/dt kicks in with the electron-hydrogen collisions. Maybe the Hot Fusion Folks should be having Scott do the calorimetry on their "Tokamaks" instead of counting neutrons. N-Tau still holds for ZPE Pumping, don't it? :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 08:06:05 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA20917; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 08:05:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 08:05:21 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980920100735.00902380 mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 10:07:35 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Minn Kota and Newman In-Reply-To: <3604AF73.33F26136 gte.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"BsT6G3.0.i65.mcH1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22529 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:32 AM 9/20/98 -0700, Bob Horst wrote: >How about this proposal: If you are certain this motor is OU, all of Vortex >together scrapes up the $454 to buy one of these motors and has Scott test it. >We make a wager -- if the motor is not OU, you agree not to post anything more >about Newman on Vortex. This sounds great! Presumably a commercialized version of Newman's motor would not need his personal attention to operate properly. We could just follow the manutacturer's operating instructions. If MinnKota DID steal Newman's technology then surely their motors must exhibit some measurable degree of the performance he claims. 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 Sep 20 09:46:03 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA11207; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 09:45:02 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 09:45:02 -0700 Message-ID: <021101bde4b6$1a28bc60$e7b4bfa8 default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Cc: "George" Subject: Re: A Wet Coax Calorimeter for High-Field ZPE Pumping? Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 10:45:34 -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: <"YXSsR1.0.0l2.D4J1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22530 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: If Scott ever gets through the Newman Motor Crisis, perhaps he could thread a length of enameled magnet wire supported on insulator-spacer beads down through the copper tubing of his calorimeter, thus making a coaxial line with the water used as a dielectric along with the insulation on the magnet wire and being stressed by high frequency-high voltage pulses on the wire. Open ended, shorted, or terminating resistor equal to Z? with the right wire size and spacing half the potential will be across the magnet wire insulation and the other half across the water flowing through the copper tubing. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 10:04:54 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA15881; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 10:04:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 10:04:03 -0700 Message-Id: <199809201704.MAA09190 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 12:04:01 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: Sending research to Stanford Resent-Message-ID: <"CDuSG.0.vt3.2MJ1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22532 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Evan, > >>> Over the years he has used the materials from his earlier prototypes to >construct more advanced prototypes. << > >And it seems that he no longer has even 1 fully operational, fully >instrumented model. > >What does Joe live on - could it be entirely on the sale of his book - if >that's not a too delicate question? > >His MO is so much a copy of Stan Meyer's that one has to wonder if his >product falls into the same category. In particular - always just about >to, but never quite makes it into commercial production. > >I wonder if you can clear up another query of mine - are you in any way an >agent of Joe's or do you act in any capacity on behalf of him or any of his >organisation(s)? If not, why do you bother with this list other than a >'fan' with no influence on the 'star'? > >Regards, Norman Horwood ***{Norman, it appears that we now have a plan which can shed some light on whether Newman's motor works--to wit: obtain and test a MinnKota motor. Given that fact, don't you think it is about time to cease the snide insinuations and personal prying? Rightly or wrongly, Stan Meyer is generally regarded as a fraud, and it is insulting to speculate publicly about potential parallels between him and Newman. Likewise, it is none of your business how Newman makes his money, or what motivates Evan to post to this list. (A question which Evan is undoubtedly asking himself right about now, unless I miss my guess!) --Mitchell Jones}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 10:04:56 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA15859; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 10:04:02 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 10:04:02 -0700 Message-Id: <199809201704.MAA09187 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 12:04:00 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: Minn Kota and Newman Resent-Message-ID: <"41uQ21.0.ft3.1MJ1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22531 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Evan Soule wrote: . > >> In the latest Edition of his book, Joe has reported the theft of his >> technology by MinnKota Corp. who have made a fortune employing his designs >> in their trolling motors. He has stated that Dr. Roger Hastings (who has >> been a consultant to MinnKota) has been the conduit of information to >> MinnKota. >> >> What I have found curious is that MinnKota would 1) suddenly began >> advertising their product as "COOL POWER" (a motor that runs cool) and 2) >> simultaneously change the nomenclature of their trolling motors from >> "horsepower" to "thrust" --- at the same time that Joe has stated they >> began using his technology in their products > >Well, I looked up Minn Kota on the web, and found this site: > >http://www.northlandmarine.com/MinnMaxxumBowMnt.htm#Anchor##MaxxumFootControl > >They do advertise "cool power" and claim that the "Maximizer" delivers five >times more power on a single battery charge. The cheapest one advertised is >$454. If they really stole Newmans ideas and really get 5x more power than a >normal motor, I assume that this motor should be OU (given that a standard >motor would be more than 20% efficient). > >How about this proposal: If you are certain this motor is OU, all of Vortex >together scrapes up the $454 to buy one of these motors and has Scott test it. ***{This proposal has a flaw: after the testing, who owns the motor? A better idea would be for some member of vortex who has a personal use for a trolling motor to buy the thing and ship it to Scott for testing. After the testing--non-destructive testing, presumably--Scott can ship the motor back to him. Or, alternatively, I suppose it could be agreed in advance that, after testing, the motor will be auctioned off to the highest bidder (by placing a post in sci.electronics.equipment, say) and the proceeds will be divided among the contributors in proportion to the relative size of their contributions. --Mitchell Jones}*** >We make a wager -- if the motor is not OU, you agree not to post anything more >about Newman on Vortex. ***{This is absurd. Evan has the right to decide what he will and will not post. The question here is whether Newman's motor works. Period. If he, Newman, will not supply a motor of his own for testing, then it is reasonable to use the MinnKota motor as a substitute, since he claims it is based on his design. But we will need Evan, who is apparently the only conduit we have to Newman, to provide feedback during the testing process, to ensure that it is conducted properly. Remember: it has been claimed by Newman himself that there are difficulties associated with testing his motors. He claimed, for example, that NIST screwed up their own testing by grounding the motor. Since, presumably, we want to do a test that will actually supply useful information, we need as much feedback from the Newman camp as we can get. So let's drop these insulting suggestions that Evan place duct tape across his mouth if the motor flunks Scott's test, and start focusing on the question of how to determine whether the motor works. --Mitchell Jones}*** If it is OU, you and everyone connected with this >technology can write your own ticket to capitalize on the technology and make >tons of money. Willing to take the bet? > >Newman should not be complaing about this company. Surely he does not expect >to manufacture every electric motor used in the whole world. Giving up the >trolling motor market to validate the concept does not sound like a bad deal to >me. There should many billions of dollars left for him in selling into all >other markets for electric motors. > >-- Bob Horst From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 10:05:13 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA15921; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 10:04:06 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 10:04:06 -0700 Message-Id: <199809201704.MAA09193 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 12:04:03 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: Sending research to Stanford Resent-Message-ID: <"8IwK02.0.fu3.5MJ1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22533 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >>To: Vortex >> >>Evan Soule describes an inept attempt to market a machine: >> >> As a matter of fact at the beginning of the 1980s Joe did load his c. >> 800-lb prototype on a flatbed and travel to Washington, D.C. with Dr. >> Hastings in an attempt to have various federal agencies observe, >> examine, and test the technology. From the PTO to the NBS (and a few >> energy agencies in between) no one was interested. >> >>Sigh . . . Newman should not waste time trying to sell the machine to people >>who do not want to buy it. Please note the agenda I posted the other day: >> >>What value do I bring the customer? Why should anyone want to buy my product? >> >>Where do I find my customers? Who do I want to sell to? > >Dear Jed, > >Thanks for your comments. > >Inept or not, at least he "picked up the telephone" (figuratively-speaking) >and went to Washington, D.C. If only you had been there to give him >valuable recommendations. > > >> >> It was c. 1985 that Joe again traveled to Washington, D.C. >> >>Ah, so he learned nothing from his first trip. He repeated the same blunder, >>trying to sell to people who are not interested. And I suppose he was >>surprised at the outcome: > >No, the first time he was sincerely endeavoring to meet with individuals >working within the political state. The second time he went to Washington, >D.C. physically display his technology (not operate in "secrecy" as it was >incorrectly suggested) in the 'heartland' of American media for the purpose >of letting others (maybe even a few Jed Rothwell types) know about the >technology. The invitation to politicians and bureaucrats was extended as >a matter of form. Their non-attendance was not surprising. > > >> >> This time with his 12,000 pound prototype (with a 750-pound magnetic >> rotor) on a flatbed truck to the Capitol Centre. He demonstrated the >> prototype . . . A variety of federal energy officials and government >> representatives were invited to attend as well as the national >> newsmedia. While I witnessed the often-jaundiced Capitol newsmedia >> giving him a "standing ovation" after the presentation by Joe and the >> physicists/engineers, not a single representative from the government >> attended. >> >>What does that experience teach you? Before you make this mistake a third >>time, think! You made the wrong presentation to the wrong audience in the >>wrong venue. No government representative attended because no government >>representative is interested, so in the future, do not try to sell the machine >>to government representatives. You must seek out customers. People like me, >>for example, who want your machine and who will pay ready cash. Find your >>customers, find out what they want, and sell it to them at a price you can >>live with. You sent a message to John Steck demanding a purchase order from >>Motorola. Obviously Steck was making an informal offer on his own, and >>obviously a major corporation is not going to issue a purchase order for a >>machine that everyone knows cannot exist. If you are going sit and wait for a >>Fortune 500 purchase order, or an endorsement from a government agency, you >>will wait until Hell freezes over. Instead of waiting passively or tilting at >>windmills, instead of chasing after pie-in-the-sky, you must take advantage of >>opportunities that present themselves here and now, starting with Earthtech. > >> >>If the jaundiced Capital newsmedia applauded the kind of demonstration & >>presentation Newman usually puts on, that confirms my suspicion that they are >>technologically illiterate. Their applause means nothing. >> >>- Jed > >I'd happily settle for someone receiving applause from technologically >illiterate newsmedia rather than inaccurate and/or misinformed statements >from someone such as yourself. I enjoy the manner in which you state that >I sent a message to John Steck "demanding" a purchase order from Motorola. >I don't recall _demanding_ anything from Mr. Steck. Joe made an >recommendation to John --- whether he chooses to pursue it or not is >obviously his choice. > >And, Joe is not "sit(ting) and wait(ing) for a Fortune 500 purchase order" >-- you are certainly entitled to this opinion, but (in my opinion) it is as >inaccurate as other comments you have made. > >Joseph Newman has (as stated before) repeatedly demonstrated his technology >before audiences comprised of individuals other than politicians and >bureaucrats. If you did not happen to be at the correct place and time to >see it for yourself --- that's the way it works out, Jed.... Of course, one >apparently doesn't need to worry about you contacting and speaking with Joe >directly to offer him your valuable recommendations. > >Best regards, > >Evan ***{Evan, you need to rise above the emotionality that has entered into Jed's presentation, and try to separate the wheat from the chaff. When you lay aside the vituperative aspects--the comments about Newman murdering 50,000 people per week, for example--you will find that much of what Jed says about marketing has merit, and should be conveyed to Newman. As for what is bothering Jed, I can only guess. I remember him commenting a week or so ago that there is no such thing as male menopause, and it occurs to me that his recent behavior may indicate why that topic was on his mind! (Sorry Jed: I couldn't resist! :-) --Mitchell Jones}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 10:09:17 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA18776; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 10:08:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 10:08:24 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 12:18:30 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Minn Kota and Newman Resent-Message-ID: <"ayXGN3.0.Db4.7QJ1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22534 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Evan Soule' wrote: . > >> In the latest Edition of his book, Joe has reported the theft of his >> technology by MinnKota Corp. who have made a fortune employing his designs >> in their trolling motors. He has stated that Dr. Roger Hastings (who has >> been a consultant to MinnKota) has been the conduit of information to >> MinnKota. >> >> What I have found curious is that MinnKota would 1) suddenly began >> advertising their product as "COOL POWER" (a motor that runs cool) and 2) >> simultaneously change the nomenclature of their trolling motors from >> "horsepower" to "thrust" --- at the same time that Joe has stated they >> began using his technology in their products > >Well, I looked up Minn Kota on the web, and found this site: > >http://www.northlandmarine.com/MinnMaxxumBowMnt.htm#Anchor##MaxxumFootControl > >They do advertise "cool power" and claim that the "Maximizer" delivers five >times more power on a single battery charge. The cheapest one advertised is >$454. If they really stole Newmans ideas and really get 5x more power than a >normal motor, I assume that this motor should be OU (given that a standard >motor would be more than 20% efficient). > >How about this proposal: If you are certain this motor is OU, all of Vortex >together scrapes up the $454 to buy one of these motors and has Scott test it. >We make a wager -- if the motor is not OU, you agree not to post anything more >about Newman on Vortex. If it is OU, you and everyone connected with this >technology can write your own ticket to capitalize on the technology and make >tons of money. Willing to take the bet? > >Newman should not be complaing about this company. Surely he does not expect >to manufacture every electric motor used in the whole world. Giving up the >trolling motor market to validate the concept does not sound like a bad deal to >me. There should many billions of dollars left for him in selling into all >other markets for electric motors. > >-- Bob Horst Dear Bob, Thanks for your comments. The 46-lb "Thrust" MinnKota/Newman Motor is the Model tested by Joseph Newman (and Joe made a video of that test) --- if you wish to contact him at: (602) 977-2813 he can discuss with you his observations/test/findings which you are certainly welcome to repeat. No one should have to "give up" anything just because someone else has chosen to steal it. Tell, you what Bob, assuming you have an automobile, I would like you to happily and without further concern "give it up" to the first person who permanently removes it from your possession without your permission. Such a theft should not trouble you since there are millions of other automobiles which you can go out and non-coercively acquire. Sincerely, Evan Soule' From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 10:12:30 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA19963; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 10:11:44 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 10:11:44 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 12:21:52 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Phone number Resent-Message-ID: <"pfLdI3.0.rt4.GTJ1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22535 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Evan, > >>> Joe's fax is at his Colorado address. At the present time he is in >Phoenix. << > >Is it on the same phone line as you quoted earlier, and does he have to >manually switch it to receive or is it always on auto-receive? If not on >that line, please let Vortex have its #. > >TIA Norman Horwood Norman, The phone/fax are the same number in Colorado -- (303) 814-3403. Joe's phone number (no fax) in Phoenix is: (602) 977-2813. Evan Soule From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 10:40:33 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA28839; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 10:39:01 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 10:39:01 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 12:49:03 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Reply to Norman Resent-Message-ID: <"6EyFa1.0.N27.qsJ1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22536 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Evan, > >>> Over the years he has used the materials from his earlier prototypes to >construct more advanced prototypes. << > >And it seems that he no longer has even 1 fully operational, fully >instrumented model. > >What does Joe live on - could it be entirely on the sale of his book - if >that's not a too delicate question? > >His MO is so much a copy of Stan Meyer's that one has to wonder if his >product falls into the same category. In particular - always just about >to, but never quite makes it into commercial production. > >I wonder if you can clear up another query of mine - are you in any way an >agent of Joe's or do you act in any capacity on behalf of him or any of his >organisation(s)? If not, why do you bother with this list other than a >'fan' with no influence on the 'star'? > >Regards, Norman Horwood Dear Norman, Thanks for your comments. Whether the unit featured on the A&E Special is operational at this point, I do not know. Joe can give you an update on its status as well as the unit in Phoenix. If you would like to know how Joe makes his living, you are welcome to contact him at: (602) 977-2813. He may be interested to discuss it with you. And no, I am not an "agent" of Joseph Newman. I believe in his work and I have assisted him for over 15 years. Sincerely curious and intellectually honesty individuals can be found in many different venues --- including vortex. It is to them that I post. Best regards, Evan Soule' From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 10:49:31 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA01450; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 10:48:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 10:48:10 -0700 Message-ID: <027f01bde4be$970135c0$ba98a8cf hh2152186.www.surfsouth.com> From: "Bill Wallace" To: Subject: Re: Sending research to Stanford Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 13:45:49 -0400 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: <"RMwEV3.0.ZM.Q_J1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22537 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: If I were a scientist, say one of the many that signed an affadavit on this technology, knew it worked, and saw the world changing technology that was there, I believe I would be jumping on the bandwagon for profits or for fame in bringing this to the masses, why has this not happened? Why with all these amazed scientists does it seem Joe is the only one still pushing this technology? >Joseph Newman has (as stated before) repeatedly demonstrated his technology >before audiences comprised of individuals other than politicians and >bureaucrats. If you did not happen to be at the correct place and time to >see it for yourself --- that's the way it works out, Jed.... Of course, one >apparently doesn't need to worry about you contacting and speaking with Joe >directly to offer him your valuable recommendations. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 10:53:13 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA03795; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 10:52:05 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 10:52:05 -0700 Message-Id: <199809201752.MAA09357 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 12:52:04 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: Minn Kota and Newman Resent-Message-ID: <"ueEoz2.0.8x.43K1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22538 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >>Evan Soule' wrote: . >> >>> In the latest Edition of his book, Joe has reported the theft of his >>> technology by MinnKota Corp. who have made a fortune employing his designs >>> in their trolling motors. He has stated that Dr. Roger Hastings (who has >>> been a consultant to MinnKota) has been the conduit of information to >>> MinnKota. >>> >>> What I have found curious is that MinnKota would 1) suddenly began >>> advertising their product as "COOL POWER" (a motor that runs cool) and 2) >>> simultaneously change the nomenclature of their trolling motors from >>> "horsepower" to "thrust" --- at the same time that Joe has stated they >>> began using his technology in their products >> >>Well, I looked up Minn Kota on the web, and found this site: >> >>http://www.northlandmarine.com/MinnMaxxumBowMnt.htm#Anchor##MaxxumFootControl >> >>They do advertise "cool power" and claim that the "Maximizer" delivers five >>times more power on a single battery charge. The cheapest one advertised is >>$454. If they really stole Newmans ideas and really get 5x more power than a >>normal motor, I assume that this motor should be OU (given that a standard >>motor would be more than 20% efficient). >> >>How about this proposal: If you are certain this motor is OU, all of Vortex >>together scrapes up the $454 to buy one of these motors and has Scott test it. >>We make a wager -- if the motor is not OU, you agree not to post anything more >>about Newman on Vortex. If it is OU, you and everyone connected with this >>technology can write your own ticket to capitalize on the technology and make >>tons of money. Willing to take the bet? >> >>Newman should not be complaing about this company. Surely he does not expect >>to manufacture every electric motor used in the whole world. Giving up the >>trolling motor market to validate the concept does not sound like a bad deal >>to >>me. There should many billions of dollars left for him in selling into all >>other markets for electric motors. >> >>-- Bob Horst > >Dear Bob, > >Thanks for your comments. > >The 46-lb "Thrust" MinnKota/Newman Motor is the Model tested by Joseph >Newman (and Joe made a video of that test) --- if you wish to contact him >at: (602) 977-2813 he can discuss with you his observations/test/findings >which you are certainly welcome to repeat. > >No one should have to "give up" anything just because someone else has >chosen to steal it. Tell, you what Bob, assuming you have an automobile, I >would like you to happily and without further concern "give it up" to the >first person who permanently removes it from your possession without your >permission. Such a theft should not trouble you since there are millions >of other automobiles which you can go out and non-coercively acquire. > >Sincerely, > >Evan Soule' ***{The use of words such as "theft," which imply that the MinnKota people regard the technology as Newman's property and are willing to take it from him in spite of that knowledge, is a highly risky and potentially self-destructive strategy. Emotion charged rhetoric of that sort suggests that Joe is planning some sort of lawsuit or publicity campaign directed against MinnKota. If so, that strikes me as wildly off the mark. What you should do, in my view, is quietly pass the word to interested parties that a commercial version of the Newman motor is now available, and suggest that they test it and verify the "over unity" aspect of its operation. At some point, thanks to MinnKota, the Newman motor will be proven technology in widespread use, and you can then get your patent and go back and extract back-royalties out of the hides of MinnKota and any others who have been manufacturing the motor in the interim. On the other hand, if you go after them now, they may simply stop manufacturing the thing, and you will kill the goose that was about to lay the golden egg. Think about it. --Mitchell Jones}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 10:54:17 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA04776; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 10:53:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 10:53:21 -0700 Message-ID: <029601bde4bf$4f951a20$ba98a8cf hh2152186.www.surfsouth.com> From: "Bill Wallace" To: , Subject: Re: Economist: world survey 9.19.98 Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 13:50:47 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0293_01BDE49D.ABDE1A60" 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: <"FrhHr.0.DA1.H4K1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22539 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_0293_01BDE49D.ABDE1A60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Well since you have brought up the topic, I would be interested in what = other members of the vortex list have discovered in their local = communities relating to the Y2K problem? In my local community of = 80,000 I have discovered some interesting things. -----Original Message----- From: Rich Murray To: rmforall earthlink.net ; = Vortex-L eskimo.com Date: Saturday, September 19, 1998 10:16 PM Subject: Y2K: Economist: world survey 9.19.98 =20 =20 http://www.economist.com/editorial/freeforall/19-9-98/bug4.html ------=_NextPart_000_0293_01BDE49D.ABDE1A60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Well since you have brought up the = topic, I=20 would be interested in what other members of the vortex list have = discovered in=20 their local communities relating to the Y2K problem?  In my local = community=20 of 80,000 I have discovered some interesting things.
 
-----Original = Message-----
From:=20 Rich Murray <rmforall@earthlink.net>
= To:=20 rmforall@earthlink.net=20 <rmforall@earthlink.net>;=20 Vortex-L@eskimo.com = <Vortex-L@eskimo.com>
Dat= e:=20 Saturday, September 19, 1998 10:16 PM
Subject: Y2K: = Economist:=20 world survey 9.19.98

= http://www.economist.com/editorial/freeforall/19-9-98/bug4.html
------=_NextPart_000_0293_01BDE49D.ABDE1A60-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 17:30:36 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA00483; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 17:24:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 17:24:03 -0700 Message-ID: <360559A5.4DA2 skylink.net> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 12:38:13 -0700 From: Robert Stirniman X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Minn Kota and Newman References: <199809201704.MAA09187 smtp.jump.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"AlGtv.0.K7.XoP1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22541 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Evan Soule wrote: . > What I have found curious is that MinnKota would 1) suddenly began > advertising their product as "COOL POWER" (a motor that runs cool) and 2) > simultaneously change the nomenclature of their trolling motors from > "horsepower" to "thrust" --- at the same time that Joe has stated they > began using his technology in their products Probably an electronically commutated motor, also known as brushless DC motor. Much more efficient due to intelligent drive. Wide speed-torque range for trolling. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 17:38:45 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA08167; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 17:37:50 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 17:37:50 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 14:46:26 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Sending research to Stanford Resent-Message-ID: <"wqa9D1.0._-1.S_P1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22542 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >If I were a scientist, say one of the many that signed an affadavit on this >technology, knew it worked, and saw the world changing technology that was >there, I believe I would be jumping on the bandwagon for profits or for fame >in bringing this to the masses, why has this not happened? Why with all >these amazed scientists does it seem Joe is the only one still pushing this >technology? > >>Joseph Newman has (as stated before) repeatedly demonstrated his technology >>before audiences comprised of individuals other than politicians and >>bureaucrats. If you did not happen to be at the correct place and time to >>see it for yourself --- that's the way it works out, Jed.... Of course, one >>apparently doesn't need to worry about you contacting and speaking with Joe >>directly to offer him your valuable recommendations. Dear Bill, Many of the scientists who have endorsed Joseph Newman's work have publicly appeared and spoken out on his behalf. Their appearances have been featured and documented on televised broadcasts. Several of these individuals told me that they were subsequently innundated with telephone calls and letters from both supporters who congratulated them for their intellectual honesty as well as naysayers who attacked them for their public endorsement of Joe's work. Sincerely, Evan Soule' From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 18:16:06 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA25876; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 18:11:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 18:11:03 -0700 Message-ID: <36058409.7104 earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 17:39:05 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Storms: Blue: issues in CF research 9.18.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"SmnGR3.0.cJ6.YUQ1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22543 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Subject: Re: Rothwell: Storms - Blue debate 9.17.98 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:30:09 -0600 From: Edmund Storms To: rmforall earthlink.net [Rich Murray: Sunday, 9.20.98 Ed Storms succinctly and calmly states the deadlock in the ongoing CF debate with Blue and Hansen, and states he might be willing to do a line-by-line review of the Miles-Bush reports of production of excess heat and He. I like this very much. Could this be made into a CF network operation? Scott Little could publish the original papers and the various critiques on his EarthTech website, and others, like myself, Blue, and Hansen, and Mike Carrell, Kirk Shanahan, Barry Merriman, could dialogue with Ed Storms during the review process. It could all be published in Infinite Energy, which this year published Rothwell's 30-page review of Miles' research. What say ye?] 9/18/98 Dear Rich et al. Dr. Hansen and I apparently have such a different process for evaluating reality, that I am losing faith in any resolution coming from this discussion. We agree on basic principles, but when these generalities are applied to the real world, agreement disappears. For example, we agree that sources of error must be identified and removed. We agree that if excessive error is present, conclusions are impossible. We also agree that great care must be taken doing calorimetry. But when Dr. Hansen looks at the published data, he sees only error. He makes suggestions as to the source of this error, which have either been eliminated by methods he rejects or are not consistent with basic chemistry. No justification for these beliefs is given, except to say it just can’t be so, because the claimed nuclear reactions are impossible. Of course, we need to look for error, and those of us who believe did not arrive at this condition by ignoring all negative data or errors, some of which were pointed out by those who are now skeptics -- a contributionfor which I am grateful. We are just as skeptical and competent as are the critics. However, we have stayed in the field, studied the phenomenon in some depth, and have mastered the known information relevant to the issue. This can not be said of the skeptics, Dr. Hansen and Dr. Blue included. This being the case, I am forced to educate at a basic level, while fighting the notion that such nuclear reactions are impossible, hence all anomalous claims are wrong by definition. Added to the problem is the suspicion, expressed by Dr. Hansen, that what I say can not be trusted, because I have stacked the deck in my favor. I wish to get at the truth as well, but I have not stacked the deck by rejecting the possibility of such nuclear reactions being real. If anyone can point out how the major claims can be wrong using factual information and the level of logic normally applied to other subjects in science, I would be very grateful. At the present time, the total weight of evidence, after careful evaluation, persuades me and many others that the claimed nuclear reactions are real and can produce useful energy. If skeptics can show me why this conclusion is wrong, using facts, I'm willing to listen and change my mind, if their arguments are sound. I would hope the skeptics will take the same approach to my arguments. (Let's not get into a debate about what sound argument means. All of us have been in science long enough to know what this means in any other field.) Because much of the background information needed to properly evaluate the data is not available to the participants, I’m willing to educate. However, the participants need to do some reading and thinking on their own. I realize this is hard for someone who believes all such effort will be wasted on nonsense. Nevertheless, that is the only way we all will make any progress. The reason the Bush data have not been published is because Ben is too busy trying to earn a living to undertake the frustrating process of fighting with the journals. Even good people in this field are not being supported. Consequently, much information remains hidden in conference proceedings or in private collections. If skeptics really want to learn the truth, they should lobby the journals to open their pages to work in this field, and lobby funding agencies to support the better studies. Subject: Re: Storms: results suggestive of CF 9.15.98 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:08:47 -0600 From: Edmund Storms To: rmforall earthlink.net 9/18/98 Dear Rich et al. I would like to summarize the approach taken by Drs. Blue and Hansen and then make a suggestion of how to break this impasse. Heat production can not be attributed to a nuclear reaction, unless a nuclear product is found, and the quantity must be consistent with the amount of heat. In the absence of having searched for a nuclear product, the work done at SRI and elsewhere can not be believed to result from anything other than error or normal chemical reactions. Miles-Bush made a correlation study between heat and a nuclear product. This is rejected because the heat measurement is believed to be faulty. Without a believable heat measurement, the helium can not be attributed to an anomalous nuclear reaction, there being various other explanations. The Bush replication is rejected, because it has not been reviewed and published, hence unknown to you. Claims for tritium production, as well as all helium claims, are rejected because they do not conform to past experience, and, again, other explanations can be imagined. The attitude being that such nuclear reactions are so implausible, that even an implausible explanation will do. Is this a fair and accurate representation of your attitudes? If so, I suggest the Miles-Bush work holds the key. If you agree, I will undertake a careful, heavily annotated review of the Miles-Bush studies which we can use as a factual basis for discussion. If you do not agree, then I’m afraid I am wasting my time. Regards, Ed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 18:17:46 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA25976; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 18:11:19 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 18:11:19 -0700 Message-ID: <36057DE7.238F earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 17:12:55 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Blue: Storms: issues in CF research 9.18.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"tOQjs.0.sK6.gUQ1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22544 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Subject: Re: Storms: Hansen: calorimetry comments 9.17.98 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:19:33 -0400 (EDT) From: "Richard A Blue" To: rmforall earthlink.net Ed Storms suggest that I am stuck at the level of CANR 101 but then launches into a very simplistic discussion of isoperibolic calorimetry. If the issue never rises above a debate about the actual precision of some assortment of calorimeters under various operating conditions. I don't think we will ever get to actually discuss CANR at any level. As I have been saying, I don't think we can resolve the calorimetry issue, nor do I really care to discuss it beyond saying that some people do it well and some people don't do it so well, and it simply is not clear that observations of "excess heat" go with the quality of the calorimetry in a way that makes me comfortable about the claims. I think the history of this subject gives ample proof that calorimetry is not providing a definitive answer as to whether CANR is occuring. Since it is clear that certain, specific nuclear effects can be detected with sensitivities that are at least ONE BILLION times better than isoperibolic calorimetry at its very best, I think it is pretty obvious what direction CANR investigations should have taken years ago. The fact the Ed Storms and others prefer to muddle around with calorimetry generating more marginal results is -- well it's pretty lame. Of course, I don't think we can overlook the fact that the excess heat claims are likely bogus if there is no actual CANR. So the unvarnished truth about all the claimed successes is that nuclear effects, that should be easily detectable, simply are not observed even when the calorimetry is showing "excess heat." The only answer that CANR advocates have so far offered to this seeming contradiction is to suggest that nuclear physics has somehow been induced to deviate dramatically from the norm to exhibit an entirely new class of reaction phenomena. However, they have been unable to construct anything approaching a rational summary of the features which define this amazingly different set of reactions. In fact the wide assortment of experimental claims must actually require a variety of different reactions that share only one common characteristic. All the reactions are essentially undetectable by the usual means. But as the data continues to accumulate, it becomes more and more obvious that no amount of fudging the physics is ever going to clear up this mess. Let's just consider one simple aspect of this by dealing with the parameter - Energy Release per Reaction Event (ERPRE). One reason Ed Storms might reject a suggestion that the effects he sees are entirely chemical in origin is that the ERPRE is too high for chemistry. If it is indeed the case that we are dealing with high-ERPRE phenomena, how should we expect that to effect the thermodynamics of the systems under study? One unanswered question that I would like to see Ed Storms address is why do not these reactions result in an abnormally high levels of atomic excitation? There is another telling point where the ERPRE claim runs aground, I believe. If we accept an assertion that the actual level of the ERPRE is undetermined, we can consider a very broad range of possibilities. A low level of ERPRE, of course, implies a greater reaction rate making more reaction product subject to potential detection. A high level of ERPRE generally seems to be suggested, however, since that is what is appropriate for any conceivable nuclear reaction process. If we go with the high level ERPRE concept, the thermodynamics needs to be addressed. My basic suggestion would be that experimental design, in that case, should focus on efforts to detect energetic events before the energy released has been degraded to thermal levels. After all thermal excitations are always present in these systems to provide a background signal of undetermined origin. Calorimetry simply cannot separate the heat from degraded CANR energy from the heat of electrochemical processes, particularly when the latter can easily be 10 times greater than the CANR contribution. Why stick with such poor experimental design? Of course all the attempts to detect high-level ERPRE events have led to negative results, haven't they! Subject: Re: Hansen: Storms: more comments 9.17.98 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 11:22:15 -0400 (EDT) From: "Richard A Blue" To: rmforall earthlink.net I am amazed at how glibly Ed Storms tosses out the concept of a reaction D + D -> 4He WITHOUT GAMMA EMISSION! I may add that he is also assuming a lack of neutron emission and a lack of proton emission. This has to be a totaly radiationless emission-- not only lacking any of the normal primary emissions following deuteron fusion but also any secondary effects that would likely accompany an event of unusually high energy release. It is clearly an attempt to "have one's cake and eat it too." Why do I suggest that such a process is unlikely to have any connection with physical reality? Fundamentally, the four-body nuclear system is simple enough that there aren't a lot of options that need to addressed as falling within the realm of the possible. Need I say that the nuclear properties of 4He have been investigated in some detail. I find it interesting that Miles, Bush, Storms, and others have always made use of some of the well-known properties of 4He, but have then selectively rejected the notion that anything else known about 4He can possibly have any bearing on this debate. One clear flaw in the CANR reasoning at this point is a failure to quantify just what is required for the claimed effect. I would start with a knowledge that the 4He system has essentially only two available quantum states of interest to this discussion. There is, of course, the ground state of ordinary garden variety helium that is, possibly, detected as a reaction product. Are we in agreement that this is not some magically altered version of helium? Because of the specifics of nuclear binding energy, the ground state of helium consists of two neutrons and two protons coupled in a particular way and that wave function is pretty well known. Strange to say there simply is no other way to rearrange those four nucleons without a very dramatic change in the energy of the system -- something like 20 MeV! There are no intermediate states available for the four nucleon system that could fit into some direct thermalization scheme as some have proposed. That is an established experimental fact! So, as long as we confine this discussion to a reaction that proceeds from two deuterons to 4He, there is only one possibility for an intermediate high-energy state. (Actually it's a cluster of several very broad states with incredibly short life times, but we will deal with that another time.) Anyone who wants to assert something different had better come prepared for an argument. Now we come to the question of an actual Chemically Altered Nuclear Reaction. Ed Storms is asserting that it is reasonable to suggest that the atomic environment which surrounds an excited 4He nucleus can alter the decay of that system. Here we need to be clear on the scale of the effect being claimed. We know for a fact that an isolated, excited 4He will decay by particle emission with roughly a 50-50 split between the neutron emission branch and the proton emission. Gamma emission comes in a poor third, and whatever else is undetected. Now CANR presumably implies some sort of perturbation that alters the wave function and influences the reaction process. How big is the required perturbation? It is not uncommon to observe circumstances in which some decay process is hindered by some particular aspect of the wave function. It is, however, uncommon to find a decay channel that is entirely cut off unless there is something we would recognize as a selection rule that forbids that decay. We know that excited helium will decay by neutron emission under normal circumstances so there seems to be no selection rule to prevent said decay. Now someone comes along and asserts that chemistry prevents the decay, but what can chemistry have to do with a selection rule? NOTHING! So in the Storms view of things, CANR hinders neutron emission by a factor of ONE BILLION. Yet he feels no obligation to discuss how this can possible come about. Instead he attempts to tack on another hindering to prevent gamma emission, equally absurd in my opinion. He is left, it seems, with a nucleus that is so perturbed that it actually makes little sense to identify it as 4He. What is it? It's clearly pure fiction. Of course simply hindering all known decay processes to such an absurd degree does not solve the problem entirely. You must still find a way to couple nuclear excitation energy to the surrounding atomic system. Some would wave their hands and utter the word "phonon." However, we cannot overlook just what a phonon actually is. A phonon is a excitation in those degrees of freedom that involve a motion of the centers of mass of the nuclei. There is a little problem, I should think in trying to relate an excitation that is internal to the nucleus to its center-of-mass motion. Please explain this, or quit sprinkling meaningless concepts about, to make people think there is something scientific involved here. Subject: Re: Storms: Blue: care taken in CF claims 9.16.98 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:46:24 -0400 (EDT) From: "Richard A Blue" To: rmforall earthlink.net > > Dr. Blue choses to use the data presented at the Como meeting so I will > start there. Figure 7 (page 435) shows a time history of excess power > (EP), resistance ratio (composition) and the cell current and voltage. > Excess power was first observed when the current was ramped up from 100 > mA. Each time the current was returned to this value (not zero which > better eyesight than Dr. Blue seems to have will show), the EP dropped > to near but not equal to zero. In addition, when the current was again > ramped after these low-current excursions, the EP again showed the same > EP-current relationship. Insufficient data are given to identify a > critical onset value. In contrast, Fig. 8 (page 437) shows a different > study where no EP was seen at 125 mA. Only after the power was ramped > above this value was EP produced. Again, the EP followed the changing > current and stopped rising when the current was held constant, thus > demonstrating that time was not having an effect. For cross-talk to be > an explanation, you would have to answer several questions. 1. Why did > the effect not occur below 125 mA? 2. Why was the effect not seen during > the many studies using other Pd samples in the same calorimeter? 3. What > error in the circuit could cause current applied to the cell to > influence only the temperature sensor at the jacket outflow? Perhaps Dr. > Blue is more clever than I am and can answer these questions. The SRI > team continued their work beyond 1991 (the year of the meeting) using > different calorimeters and different data acquisition systems while > still seeing the effect only when certain palladium was used and then > only when high loading was achieved. How can cross-talk be related to > the D/Pd ratio of the palladium? > I think most of Ed Storms questions can be answered by some simple further observations. As for 125 mA being an apparent threshold for the EP effect, Ed ignores the potential bias and experimental uncertainties in defining when the effect is present at a low level or absent entirely. There is no good way to recognize ZERO, and its not just my poor eyesight. I would suggest that the electrical cross talk could easily result from the fact that all wires were tightly bundled together in order to achieve a better definition of thermal boundary conditions. After the run in question, the calorimeter was complete disassembled before it was put back together for further measurements. Thus the precise conditions relating to electrical cross talk would not likely be reproduced, and indeed all sudsequent data obtained with this device exhibit a different characteristic behavior with respect to a tracking between current and excess heat. The pattern to which I refered disappeared, never to be seen again! > In my case, I used an isoparibolic-type calorimeter rather than a > flow-type. The calorimeter was stirred, closed and sealed, and > contained at least two glass covered thermistors within the cell. > Occasionally a thermistor was placed in contact with the cathode to show > that EP was originating at the cathode. Calibration was done using > electrolysis power applied to a Pt cathode or to the Pd sample before it > became active. Any changes in calibration were detected using an > internal Joule heater. Data were collected using a National Instruments > system. The results of this work can be found in Fusion Technology and > in Infinite Energy. The behavior I observed with respect to > current-effect as well as composition- effect is totally consistent with > what Mike McKubre has reported over the years. There is no conceivable > way for the applied current to affect the voltage generated by the > thermistors. I can only hope that this assertion can be believed in the > absence of seeing the apparatus for yourself. > I have attempted to make it quite clear that my "cross talk" explanation relates to one specific run in one particular series of measurements, and is not intended to apply more generally. > What of the consequences Dr Blue derives from my proposal of a “magic” > condition? He concludes that for this to be the correct explanation, > there should be a spectrum of values such that everyone should have seen > at least some effect if only they had a sufficiently sensitive > calorimeter. Tom Droege’s failed attempts using a very sensitive > calorimeter is given as an example of the proposed pattern not being > followed. In this case, Dr. Blue creates a hypothetical pattern and > then shows the proposed evidence for CANR to be faulty because the > pattern does not exist. However, his is not the only pattern worth > considering. All of the work I know about is consistent with most > palladium being totally dead no matter what is done. A sensitive > calorimeter is totally irrelevant. Only a very few samples of Pd can > achieve the heat producing state and then only after they have been > highly loaded. Droege did not attempt to follow the methods suggested > to produce this result. Consequently, even if he were lucky to have > obtained potentially active Pd, production of EP would have been even > more unlikely than is normally the case. Only after suitable palladium > is properly loaded does the current-EP relationship show its self. > Indeed, I would expect, as does Dr. Blue, the conditions required to > initiate a nuclear reaction to be very rare indeed. Otherwise, as Dr. > Blue notes, the obvious stability of normal matter and isotopic ratios > would be challenged. > Here we revert back to the old claim that negative results arise whenever people do not do it "right". Of course, doing it "right" is defined as whatever it takes to get a positive result. What I have been suggesting is that achieving the proper conditions should never be an all-or-nothing kind of thing. At least I have not heard of good evidence that establishes such a mechanism as reality. In fact what Ed Storms said suggested to my mind a good possibility that many successes would be partial rather than complete. I would like to know how he selects the "good"runs from the "bad" runs that everyone seems to acknowledge still occur. If it takes "suitable" palladium why is it not the case that some cathodes are partly "suitable" and partly "unsuitable"? I am tired of hearing that the source of the palladium had to be particular firm using a particular process, when there are still claims of success that do not conform absolutely to that standard. I also don't understand how plated palladium can conform to some standard that applies to material used in a solid cathode directly as received from the supplier. > How are we to evaluate the calibration methods of Miles and, indeed, any > other study? Dr. Blue is correct in saying that many uncontrolled > variables can influence the calibration constant of an isoparibolic > calorimeter. Flow-type and the Seebeck calorimeters are more fortunate > in this respect. In the case of Miles, he used a secondary isoparibolic > method in which the heat flow was measured through a thermal barrier > outside of the electrolytic cell. Therefore, the effect of temperature > gradient was greatly reduced, thus eliminating one of the major > variables. This design is also relatively insensitive to the effect of > bubbles. This being the case, the calorimeter is expected to be > stable, this being the only requirement. Once calibrated, either by > Joule heating or by electrolytic action, the calorimeter indicates > excess power by a change in the previously zero difference between > applied electrical power (VxA) and measured heat, corrected for neutral > potential in their case. They were able to demonstrate, contrary to the > assertions of Jones et al., that no recombination was occurring in the > cell by keeping a running tally of D2O usage. Therefore, the only > requirement is a stable device; the initial calibration being only > required to establish the initial null condition. An error analysis > needs only to demonstrate the amount of expected drift and the random > error in the measurements. I think Miles et al. made a case for their > claimed error. For the sake of argument, let’s suppose their error was > greater than claimed. The average of all seven points combined with the > He measurement is about a factor of 2 ± 2 lower than would be the case > if the reaction had an energy of 24 MeV. In addition, all of the error > bars overlap. Would Dr. Blue feel better if the factor were 2 ± 4? > Would this prove that the measurements were faulty? The fact that they > obtained less He than expected from a 24 MeV reaction is comforting to > me. No doubt some of the He remained in the palladium as expected. I > would have been more willing to agree with Dr. Blue if they had found > more He than expected from a fusion reaction. > In Miles' case I would see much greater significance in the claim if something akin to a double-blind analysis had been employed. If you accept my notion that the errors are significantly larger than claimed most of the "excess heat" gets lost in the noise. It becomes much less clear precisely which runs are, in fact, showing an effect to be correlated with levels of detected helium -- also a rather marginal measurement in most cases, given the fact that we know there are possible atmospheric contributions and the interference with molecular deuterium to be considered. I'd be much happier to see a mass spectrum that shows some residual deuterium than just a single peak that we are told must be helium. I thought it was a little less then honest when the data was presented without any illustration of a mass spectrum! How much are we supposed to take on faith? > We need to clear up a basic lack of understanding. The CANR effect can > be produced using a variety of methods. Once deuterium is placed in Pd > at a composition suitable to produce nuclear-active conditions, the Pd > does not care how the deuterium got there. Miles-Bush, Arata-Zhang and > Stringham-George each use different methods but produced the same > result. Unfortunately, not all researchers measure the same > consequences of the reaction. While each study has demonstrated EP > production, Arata-Zhang and Stringham-George looked for He in the Pd > while Miles-Bush looked for He in the gas - because the respective > measurements were easier to do. This difference means nothing. > Hopefully, someone will have the funding to make both measurements some > day. Until then, we all will just have to be patient. No, they did not produce the same result! You just chose to lump the results together because it suits your purpose, but we really should take note of the differences if we are to gain any understanding of what is occurring. For example, H2O and D2O have such remarkably different nuclear properties that it surely must be significant to the process if there is an effect at all. Tritium, 3He and 4He have such remarkably different nuclear properties that they cannot be just lumped together as "the reaction products". We ought to be able to determine something akin to relative reaction rates and to use that information as a clue toward understanding a process, if there is one. Your "anything goes" attitude is counter-productive. > Dr. Blue raises the question of how the mechanism for these strange > nuclear reaction can be justified. Over 100 explanations have been > offered with about a dozen being remotely credible. I have summarized > some of the more useful attempts in my review, which I suggest you read > before we discuss this subject in more detail. > > As for the nature of the nuclear products, from experimental observation > using heavy hydrogen in its various chemical forms (rather than theory) > I conclude that tritium can be produced but seldom during EP production; > helium-4 can be produced and this seems to have a direct relationship to > EP; Helium-3 has been detected and its relationship to the conditions is > still in doubt; no significant gamma emission is seen although some > low- level emission has been occasionally detected; no significant > neutron emission is seen but, again, occasionally some low-level > emission consistent with the energy expected from “normal” fusion is > detected. When studied in vacuum, emission of p+, d+, t+ and, perhaps, > alpha have been claimed. All of these products are expected, only their > intensities relative to each other are abnormal. Is this a reason to > reject all of the claims? If not, which sould we keep? If all of the > claims are accepted, I are forced to conclude that several nuclear > reactions are possible depending on the particular chemical conditions > within the nuclear-active region. Doesn’t this add more than you wanted > to know? Yes, there are reasons to reject some of the claims regarding various emissions, but if you are comfortable with saying that only 4He seems to be produced in ammounts commensurate with observed CANR power levels, I am comfortable with the notion that those other things can largely be ignored. I am not particularly comfortable with the notion that certain emissions, such as neutrons and gammas, are not present as expected. You say there are 100s of explanations offered for this, but can't we just narrow it down to a few of the more reasonable ones? Some of the theories are so far out in left field they should be left there. Dick Blue From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 18:18:23 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA28120; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 18:15:58 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 18:15:58 -0700 Message-ID: <36059BF7.3A4C earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 19:21:11 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rmforall earthlink.net, Vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Y2K: Economist: bug-hunting 9.19.98 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------31734C79696E" Resent-Message-ID: <"NdBTh2.0.4t6.CZQ1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22545 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. --------------31734C79696E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://www.economist.com/editorial/freeforall/19-9-98/bug3.html --------------31734C79696E Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1; name="bug3.html" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline; filename="bug3.html" Content-Base: "http://www.economist.com/editorial/fre eforall/19-9-98/bug3.html" Survey article =


SURVEY   = THE MILLENNIUM BUG

The art of bug-hunting
3D"Further

Search ar= chive

 = = =
   Find them, zap them, test—and keep your fingers crossed=
 
AMERICAN universities are full of distinguished academics who programmed = in their youth. One is Hal Varian, now dean of the School of Information = and Management Systems at the University of California at Berkeley. In 19= 66, Professor Varian worked for a big Boston defence contractor. “At= the end of summer,” he reminisces, “I was going back to school= , and my boss was also leaving the company. On my last day, he told me to= go through the assembly-language programs I had spent the summer working= on and take out all the comments cards. ‘But then no one will be ab= le to understand the program,’ I protested. ‘Exactly,’ he = said. ‘They’ll have to hire us both back as consultants if they= want to make any changes.’ ”

These days, IT departments curse people like young= Varian. Many, especially in banks and government departments, are aghast= at the sheer volume of ancient code. “Companies always have an orde= r of magnitude more than they think,” say Gary Miles, of PA Consulting Group. They may also discover some long-lost syst= ems. “In one bank, we found two IT department= s that the management didn’t know about,” he says. Most organis= ations seem to find that millennium work costs more than expected (see ch= art 3 for the American government’s experience). Not only is the tas= k huge, it is also deadly dull (“like sorting out your sock drawer,&= #148; says one veteran).


3D"picture"
=

But locating bugs is only the first of the three main stages of the proce= ss, to be followed by treating them in one of several ways, and then by t= esting to try to ensure that the problem is solved. Moreover, locating ro= gue dates on computers is often easier than finding all the bits of equip= ment that may contain date-sensitive embedded systems. One of the best gu= ides to that problem, by Britain’s Institution of Electrical Engineers,= laments:
The general problems are that:
a) no one knows how many embedded systems there are and where they are (e= xcept that they are “everywhere”), and they are not always easy= to detect;
b) no one knows which embedded systems have devices in them which depend = on date information;
c) there are very many different ways in which the problem might show up,= and new aspects continue to be found.
 . . . and so on, through (g), (h) and (i).

Companies know even less about their embedded systems than about their so= ftware. There is no systematic catalogue, nor any general standard: as Ha= rris Miller, president of the Information Technology Association of America, the indus= try’s main trade group, points out, “You don’t buy a chip,= you buy a medical device, and the maker of the device may have bought th= e chip as part of a component.” Many of the companies that used to m= ake micro-processing chips have, like those early programmers, vanished f= rom the scene.

Commonwealth Bank in Australia tackled the task by tracking down 25,000 d= evices containing embedded chips and subjecting them to risk analysis. &#= 147;We think 3-6% may be affected,” says Ken Pritchard, who directs = the Year 2000 programme. “Most are in air conditioning, security and= power. We’ve gone back to the vendors where we can, but we can’= ;t test them ourselves. So we’re asking whether they have a signific= ant effect, and if so, can we live with it? If not, we replace them.= ”

Some of those who hunt for troublesome chips say reassuringly that the pr= oblem is quite small. Dean Kothmann, general partner at Black & Veatch, a= consultancy that specialises in chip searches, estimates that fewer than= 10% of embedded systems have a date problem, and fewer than 10% of those= have a “hard” failure, which shuts them down, rather than a &#= 147;soft” failure, which merely generates screwball numbers.

But that 1%, if missed, can cause a disproportionate amount of trouble. C= harles Siebenthal, a senior engineer at the Electric Power Research Insti= tute (EPRI) in California, describes a test in an American nuclea= r-power station: the device that controlled the depth of the fuel rod in = the core began to oscillate because the air-conditioning system in the co= ntrol room failed and the temperature rose. Nobody had bothered to check = that.

The next step is to ask the supplier of the original software or chip whe= ther the product is millennium-compliant. Some suppliers provide Year 200= 0 information via elaborate web sites: indeed, the Internet has emerged a= s a global source of such information. Some suppliers contact customers w= ithout waiting for a call. IBM, for instance, has = tried to write to all large purchasers of its equipment over the past dec= ade to tell them whether the product is fit for the millennium. But many = suppliers either do not know—or do not answer.

Once the troublesome components have been identified, companies have two = main options: repair or replace. For early birds, replacement provided a = chance to introduce more coherent software systems, creating a boom for c= ompanies such as SAP which sell them. However, suc= h re-engineering generally needs a good two years, which means that organ= isations starting only now will have little option but to repair.

Replacing parts in embedded systems is quicker. No need to write new soft= ware; simply rip out one component, stick in another and hope the rest of= the system still works. Often this is the only option. “In many ins= tances,” says James Eddison, a Year 2000 project manager at Unilever= , “it is almost impossible to test embedded chips because they are i= n ‘black box’ situations. You choose between an assurance from = the supplier or replacement.”

With some packaged software, the answer is a “patch”: a small a= ddition to the original code, written by the supplier, that bypasses or c= orrects the problem. Most PC operating systems and= applications at risk are being corrected that way. But with the software= code that companies have written for customised applications, the answer= is often to use a search program to hunt for some 20 or so words commonl= y used in programming to denote time, and add the two extra digits. This = offers a permanent solution, but it is time-consuming and expensive—= and often there is not enough space to squeeze in the extra bytes of code= =2E A stop-gap alternative is “windowing”: writing software tha= t instructs a computer to treat every date before a certain year as belon= ging to the next century. Such a solution works for relatively short-live= d items such as mortgages but not, in an age with more and more centenari= ans, for medical records. A third short-term option is to add a program t= o convince the computer that the year after 1999 is 1972, which began on = the same day of the week as 2000 will, and was also a leap year.

Once companies start dealing with their big problems, they begin to notic= e lots of smaller problems, which may be less complicated in IT terms but much harder for managers to deal with. These sprin= g from the fashion for distributed systems—networks of PCs in individual departments. EDS, an o= utsourcer, talks gloomily of one company with 50 types of desktop compute= rs, and another with 20,000 individual desktop PCs= , only half of them millennium-ready. Where the users have written their = own applications, “they have to bring us out to sit with them” = and unravel the mess.

The most time-consuming part of the task turns out to be testing. This is= much harder to farm out than correction, because a test needs to ensure = that all of a company’s systems will work together, not just one in = isolation. Testing software requires extra capacity, or needs to be carri= ed out at a weekend.

“Testing is hell,” says J.P. Morgan’s Mr Miller. It genera= lly seems to take about 60% of the time needed to make a company millenni= um-ready. Alter one line of code, or replace one device with another, and= the system may no longer work.

That, moreover, is merely in one plant. Once a company’s systems are= individually compliant, the next stage is to test whether they work with= each other. That may be harder if different departments have been allowe= d to adopt different solutions. The companies that are farthest ahead, su= ch as large American financial institutions, are now moving on to the mos= t complex stage of all: testing whether their millennium-compliant system= s will still work with those of their business partners.

 

Try triage

Even if all testing is successfully completed, a company’s troubles = are not over. What happens if new software is introduced before the big d= ate? Many firms are reaching the same conclusion as Visa, which is n= ow far enough ahead to have reduced the staff of programmers tackling the= Year 2000 from 25 to three. “We’re freezing changes in the exi= sting system after March,” says Ray Barnes, the group’s executi= ve vice-president. “In September next year we will skip the roll-out= of new products that we usually make twice a year. We’re being ultr= a-conservative.”

One of the main lessons from bug-hunting so far is the need for “tri= age”: setting priorities and determining which systems are “mis= sion-critical” (lots of battlefield jargon here). Many organisations= that began work later have realised that they have no hope of being enti= rely compliant in time. Instead, they need to be “millennium-ready&#= 148;. That means identifying those systems that matter most to their busi= ness, fixing those that can be fixed and drawing up contingency plans to = cope with the rest. Randy Bowden, who handles the Year 2000 for Unisys in= Australia (one of the countries farthest along the road), argues that tr= iage and contingency planning will become the two main themes of millenni= um work as the deadline approaches.

In addition, managers will increasingly find that their navigation of the= millennium depends on whether their suppliers and distributors have deal= t with their systems in turn. If the power is down, the taps run dry and = the bank is shut, all that testing will not keep the business going.

 3D=

=
--------------31734C79696E-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 18:24:59 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA08062; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 11:04:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 11:04:37 -0700 Message-ID: <36054400.99B89F7E GroupZ.net> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 14:05:52 -0400 From: sno X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5b2 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, "freenrg-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: Minn Kota and Newman References: <199809201704.MAA09187 smtp.jump.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"EE9ui.0.uz1.rEK1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22540 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Well I've got 20 bucks, (us dollars)....and don't care if I get it back if it proves or disproves something .... So how about it Scott, if we send you the money will you buy and test a motor ??.....steve opelc Mitchell Jones wrote: > > >Evan Soule wrote: . > > > >> In the latest Edition of his book, Joe has reported the theft of his > >> technology by MinnKota Corp. who have made a fortune employing his designs > >> in their trolling motors. He has stated that Dr. Roger Hastings (who has > >> been a consultant to MinnKota) has been the conduit of information to > >> MinnKota. > >> > >> What I have found curious is that MinnKota would 1) suddenly began > >> advertising their product as "COOL POWER" (a motor that runs cool) and 2) > >> simultaneously change the nomenclature of their trolling motors from > >> "horsepower" to "thrust" --- at the same time that Joe has stated they > >> began using his technology in their products > > > >Well, I looked up Minn Kota on the web, and found this site: > > > >http://www.northlandmarine.com/MinnMaxxumBowMnt.htm#Anchor##MaxxumFootControl > > > >They do advertise "cool power" and claim that the "Maximizer" delivers five > >times more power on a single battery charge. The cheapest one advertised is > >$454. If they really stole Newmans ideas and really get 5x more power than a > >normal motor, I assume that this motor should be OU (given that a standard > >motor would be more than 20% efficient). > > > >How about this proposal: If you are certain this motor is OU, all of Vortex > >together scrapes up the $454 to buy one of these motors and has Scott test it. > > ***{This proposal has a flaw: after the testing, who owns the motor? A > better idea would be for some member of vortex who has a personal use for a > trolling motor to buy the thing and ship it to Scott for testing. After the > testing--non-destructive testing, presumably--Scott can ship the motor back > to him. Or, alternatively, I suppose it could be agreed in advance that, > after testing, the motor will be auctioned off to the highest bidder (by > placing a post in sci.electronics.equipment, say) and the proceeds will be > divided among the contributors in proportion to the relative size of their > contributions. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > >We make a wager -- if the motor is not OU, you agree not to post anything more > >about Newman on Vortex. > > ***{This is absurd. Evan has the right to decide what he will and will not > post. The question here is whether Newman's motor works. Period. If he, > Newman, will not supply a motor of his own for testing, then it is > reasonable to use the MinnKota motor as a substitute, since he claims it is > based on his design. But we will need Evan, who is apparently the only > conduit we have to Newman, to provide feedback during the testing process, > to ensure that it is conducted properly. Remember: it has been claimed by > Newman himself that there are difficulties associated with testing his > motors. He claimed, for example, that NIST screwed up their own testing by > grounding the motor. Since, presumably, we want to do a test that will > actually supply useful information, we need as much feedback from the > Newman camp as we can get. So let's drop these insulting suggestions that > Evan place duct tape across his mouth if the motor flunks Scott's test, and > start focusing on the question of how to determine whether the motor works. > --Mitchell Jones}*** > > If it is OU, you and everyone connected with this > >technology can write your own ticket to capitalize on the technology and make > >tons of money. Willing to take the bet? > > > >Newman should not be complaing about this company. Surely he does not expect > >to manufacture every electric motor used in the whole world. Giving up the > >trolling motor market to validate the concept does not sound like a bad deal to > >me. There should many billions of dollars left for him in selling into all > >other markets for electric motors. > > > >-- Bob Horst From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 18:31:52 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA04474; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 18:30:31 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 18:30:31 -0700 Message-Id: <199809210130.UAA12507 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 20:30:21 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: Minn Kota and Newman Resent-Message-ID: <"mhj412.0.a41.qmQ1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22546 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Evan Soule wrote: . >> What I have found curious is that MinnKota would 1) suddenly began >> advertising their product as "COOL POWER" (a motor that runs cool) and 2) >> simultaneously change the nomenclature of their trolling motors from >> "horsepower" to "thrust" --- at the same time that Joe has stated they >> began using his technology in their products > >Probably an electronically commutated motor, also known as >brushless DC motor. Much more efficient due to intelligent >drive. Wide speed-torque range for trolling. ***{Logical, but incorrect. According to the Minn Kota website, thrust is measured with 12.8 volts DC "applied to the brushes." --Mitchell Jones}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 18:34:26 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA06154; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 18:32:34 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 18:32:34 -0700 Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 18:33:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809210133.SAA26258 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Whirlpower Introduction Resent-Message-ID: <"Xfw8C1.0.yV1.noQ1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22547 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > > > Hi Everybody, > > > > This is David Dennard, author of Whirlpower Theory. From what I understand > > > > there has been some discussion here about this, so I would like to hear > > some > > of > > your thoughts. I know Whirlpower probably goes into the "crackpot theory" > > catagory, but let me say there are a number of credible people that have > > looked > > at my work and think it possible. > > > > Plus, I have been giving full disclosure for over a year now and allowed > > full > > > > scrutiny of my theory. So far there is no disproof. I know that is a long > > > > way > > from proof but it does eliminate duplicity, and does show I am not trying > > to > > pull some kind of trick. > > > > My approach to this is not from science, although I took a number of > > physics > > courses in college I am by no means a scientist. The truth is, the idea > > came > > to > > me in a dream. > > > > The most amazing thing about Whirlpower is its simplicity. A child should > > be > > > > able to understand it. It does however appear beyond even the smartest > > scientists to explain it in scientific terms. > > > > There is a full Whirlpower Theory page put up for me by Dutch Physicist > > Edward > > Maesen at; . Here a full > > discription can be seen complete with moving graphics showing the action I > > propose to tap. > > > > My theory has also been confirmed by Curt Halberg at Vortex World in > > Sweden. > > > > This site contains historical information of similar works, most noteably, > > Viktor Schauberger. His is probably the closest to mine in historical > > literature but also very different. Vortex World also has the test of > > principle > > model. It is a water cleaning devise they built a few years ago. They did > > > > not > > know or were they trying to build Whirlpower when this prototype was made, > > but > > after they found out about my theory they remembered something they saw > > that > > confirms Whirlpower in principle. Further work is underway. Vortex World > > is > > > > at; > > > > Furthermore, Dan Winter has confirmed my theory. Dan has an excellent work > > > > up > > at . We just a few days ago had a wonderful meeting and > > > > he > > is working of the mathmatical formulation and will be putting up a complete > > > > Whirlpower section very soon. > > > > Most of my work so far on the internet has been done on the Science and > > Spirituality List at Spiritweb, . Here is a chronical > > of > > debate and discussion going on for a year. Just recently the list operator > > > > announced he thought Whirlpower might work and believe me it was no easy > > job > > getting him to say that. > > > > Now, I am here. I hope to have a good discussion. Since it was just > > announced > > on Network TV that during this past year almost everything science thought > > about > > the vortex has been proven to be wrong. So if you are going by "Old Dogma" > > > > in > > your arguments you might want to catch up on the latest. > > > > Whirlpower is not "free energy" and does have a source of energy. It is no > > > > more > > "free energy" than solar. > > > > Whirlpower harnesses the force of gravity. > > > > Please check out the Whirlpower page. Ask questions. Criticize me. Call > > me > > > > names. But I hope there will be some here that are interested in helping > > me > > find out if Whirlpower works, not just telling me it doesn't. > > > > Thank you, > > David Dennard > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 18:58:46 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA19193; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 18:57:34 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 18:57:34 -0700 Message-ID: <3605B45E.62CF lcia.com> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 22:05:18 -0400 From: B25B LCIA.COM (RON BRENNEN) Reply-To: b25b LCIA.COM X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: RE: Newman vs Minn-kota Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"G-lI41.0.kh4.DAR1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22548 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi all: I don't see any comparison between Newman's motor and Minn-Kota's trolling motors. Newman's motor in his demo weighs 400 lbs. and has no iron in the core. The Minn-Kota described in its parts outline on its web page is an ordinary motor with an armature and brushes. It's claim to be 5 times more efficient than its other motors is because their other motors have resistors for speed control. The newer motors have PWM. Ron Brennen From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 18:58:57 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA19294; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 18:57:58 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 18:57:58 -0700 Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 18:59:59 -0700 From: Lynn Kurtz Subject: Re: Minn Kota and Newman In-reply-to: <3.0.5.32.19980920100735.00902380 mail.eden.com> X-Sender: kurtz imap2.asu.edu (Unverified) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <199809210159.SAA02603 smtp1.asu.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" References: <3604AF73.33F26136 gte.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"gjumJ1.0.Nj4.bAR1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22549 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:07 AM 9/20/98 -0500, you wrote: >At 12:32 AM 9/20/98 -0700, Bob Horst wrote: > > >This sounds great! Presumably a commercialized version of Newman's motor >would not need his personal attention to operate properly. We could just >follow the manutacturer's operating instructions. If MinnKota DID steal >Newman's technology then surely their motors must exhibit some measurable >degree of the performance he claims. > > Scott, have you forgotten Barry Merriman's advice of a year or so ago? Suppose you go through with this and obtain and test the motor and find nothing abnormal. Then what? Well, who ever said that it was an official Newman motor in the first place? You are right back where you were then. In fact, I distinctly remember you agreeing with Barry at the time and posting a message to Evan requesting to test an official working Newman motor at the time. What ever did become of that request? --Lynn From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 19:32:47 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA05225; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 19:28:08 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 19:28:08 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 21:38:13 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Minn Kota and Roger Hastings Resent-Message-ID: <"6laGl2.0.YH1.tcR1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22550 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Stefan, It is incorrect to only say "Joe teaches low current and HIGH voltage." This is what Joe has specificially said relative to his technology: Joseph Newman's Motor/Generators have generally been designed with the optimal purpose of "achieving the LEAST amount of current inputed to have the GREATEST amount of atom alignment in the conductor material (which causes the GREATEST magnetic field)." Note: Model 12 MinnKota Motor (Pre-Newman Motor) had a 2.5 inch diameter. Model 40 MinnKota Motor (Post-Newman Motor) had a 4 inch diameter. This increase in diameter size and high efficiency (per Joseph Newman's teachings) occurred ONLY after Dr. Roger Hastings traveled to Joseph Newman's home/lab in the early 1980s and mastered such teachings and is only _ONE_ example of a number of applications related to specific technologies disclosed by Joe to Roger Hastings. It was in 1983 that Roger Hastings began working as a consultant to MinnKota Motors while he was also a principal physicist with the Sperry Corp. Roger Hasting's brother, John Hastings worked full time at Minn-Kota. It was in 1985 that MinnKota began using technologies and specific trade secrets originally disclosed to Roger Hastings by Joseph Newman which resulted in the first Newman Energy Motor produced by MinnKota (without Joe's permission or contract). The following is one of the Confidentiality and Work Contract/Disclosure Agreement signed by Roger Hastings in 1981 and 1982: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN I, Roger Hastings, on this day of September 26, 1981, am being shown and having explained to me a new source of energy device which has energy output greater than energy input (by use of Magnetic Energy) and which has U.S. and Foreign patents pending. I am being shown this in strict confidence and I will not disclose this information to any one else. I also agree that any improvements or inventions which I may develop from or as a result of the disclosure I have been shown and had explained will be the sole property of Joseph Westley Newman. [Signed] Dr. Roger Hastings (The above is in addition to numerous additional Disclosure Documents and Declarations signed by Dr. Hastings.) At one point Dr. Hastings told Joseph Newman that MinnKota would be very interested in utilizing Joe's technologies in their new Motors. Joe told Roger Hastings that he would be very interested in discussing a contract/royalty agreement with the company for production purposes. It was shortly after this that Dr. Hastings ceased all contact with Joseph Newman (other than to say "please do not release my telephone numbers/address because all the people who are continually contacting me are interfering with my business and personal life.") and MinnKota Corp. began employing Joseph Newman's technology in their motors. Joe has said that he gives credit to Roger Hastings for "mastering my work." Roger once said on the national CBS Evening News broadcast featuring Joseph Newman's technology: "If you have any conscience, you can't walk away from this (Joe's technology)." Well, Roger was apparently "right" in a _reverse_ sort of way: "He didn't walk away from it, and he apparently had no conscience." Someone once said that "theft" is one of the HIGHEST (lowest?) forms of "flattery." Evan Soule' From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 19:42:37 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA10370; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 19:40:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 19:40:47 -0700 Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 22:38:06 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Minn Kota purchase contribution Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809202241_MC2-5A14-BABF compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"z3Lq5.0.xX2.koR1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22551 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex I think it may be a good idea to purchase a Minn Kota motor. If Scott Little has the time and he thinks it is worthwhile, I'll contribute $100 toward the purchase of the machine. (My money, not I.E.'s.) Scott: let us know if you decide to proceed. I expect four other contributors will step forward. During his lectures, Newman has held up a mass-produced motor which he said based on a design stolen from him. I presume this was the Minn Kota motor. Newman did not power up the motor or instrument it during the lectures, which mystified his audience. At least, it mystified the people I spoke with. Why bring the motor if you do not intend to prove what you say? Mitchell Jones raises the possibility that the motor must be tested with a special protocol, and Little will need to consult with Newman to make sure he is doing the test correctly. That seems unlikely. I suppose a motor is a motor and they are all tested the same way, but if a special test is required I expect Newman will refuse to help, because this is a "stolen" motor. Scott Little should confer with Newman about this before proceeding. For many practical reasons, I find hard to believe this company is selling o-u equipment to the public. First, because it has not informed the customers they are tapping a totally unknown source of energy in violation of known physics. This might be illegal, and it is surely unethical. The mysterious energy might conceivably pose a radiation threat or something like that. I believe Griggs always informs his customers that minor excess energy anomalies can be expected with his machine. It is not a selling point, because energy is so cheap and the money saved in energy is dwarfed by other savings in engineering, maintenance, safety, and other features. Perhaps Northland Marine knows about the excess energy from the Minn Kota motor, but they want to keep it quiet because they fear it will open a pandora's box of opposition, hysteria, attacks by the Men In Black, and so on. It is inconceivable that they have overlooked the excess energy, and they have forgotten to measure motor performance. In marine and automotive applications motor performance is critical. People's lives depend upon it. I think it is also extremely unlikely that the excess would be overlooked during safety testing at U.L. or at various Federal Agencies. Can anyone imagine a U.L. engineer shrugging her shoulders and signing off on a violation of the First Law? Maybe in a comic book . . . All in all, there is little chance these motor produce excess energy, but if Scott wants to take the trouble to find out, I'm willing to help. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 20:24:36 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA29526; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 20:16:46 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 20:16:46 -0700 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: fjsparb sprintmail.com Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 20:13:19 -0700 Subject: Re: High-Field ZPE Pumping in Capacitors and Inductors Message-ID: <19980920.201322.3606.2.tv juno.com> References: <016701bde43d$38324b00$e7b4bfa8 default> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,3-7,9-14,16-38,40-41,43-56,58-85 From: tv juno.com (Tim Vaughan) Resent-Message-ID: <"NE1ff2.0.9D7.TKS1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22552 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Frederick, Thank you for your further elucidation, however, the idea is still fuzzy to me. Under what circumstances does a collision release this excess energy apart from a conversion of mass to energy such as in fission or fusion ? Why does a gas or plasma, consisting of numerous colliding atoms, not go into thermal run away (explosion) ? Tim ( tv juno.com ) On Sat, 19 Sep 1998 20:19:43 -0600 "Frederick J Sparber" writes: > >-----Original Message----- >From: Tim Vaughan >To: vortex-l eskimo.com >Date: Saturday, September 19, 1998 6:09 PM >Subject: Re: High-Field ZPE Pumping in Capacitors and Inductors > >Tim wrote: > > >>Hi Frederick, >> >>Please explain how High-Field ZPE Pumping would work. >> >>I wish to understand your principle. >> >>Tim Vaughan > >I'm not glad you asked, Tim, :-) However: > >Consider a lone hydrogen atom (electron-proton) >in a vacuum "matchbox". Now you move the box and the atom strikes a >side causing the EM field of the electron in effect to collide with the EM >field of the proton,which causes the 3 Quarks in the proton to donate a >slight amount of mass to the electron,both change mass/radius in accordance >with, R= k*q^2/Eo. > >But Nature has Fixed values of R, >ie., n*Re*Alpha^(+/-)n' where Alpha is the "fine structure constant" >0.00729729 and Re is the radius of the electron, 2.81E-15 meters, >n = 1,2,3..., n'= 0,1,2... > >So, as I see it ZPE IS NOT a bunch of energy waves permeating the >vacuum, but a PROPERTY of the VACUUM that restores R in the >above equation to it's NATURAL Value, Thus >Mass/Energy is held constant except for collisions. > >So when you collide electrons, quarks,atoms or molecules the collision >energy is conserved with the collision momentum PLUS the "free energy" dE = h/dt >that the vacuum property "ZPE" compensates for the loss of. > >Illegal sentence? :-) > >So, you have collisions from trillions of ev >that can build galaxies, down to "CF" thermal >collisions that give you"free energy" gains of x percent above what >you >invested when you "shook the matchbox". > >Thus, conceivably,if you use High-Fields to >jiggle the hydrogenous atoms/molecules, you are in effect shaking the >matchbox, aren't you? > >Regards, Frederick > >> >>( 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] >> >> > > > _____________________________________________________________________ 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 Sun Sep 20 20:36:55 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA32125; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 20:23:34 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 20:23:34 -0700 Message-ID: <360567F1.ECEE30D9 gte.net> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 13:39:16 -0700 From: Bob Horst X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Minn Kota and Newman References: <199809201704.MAA09187 smtp.jump.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"WHK5f2.0.qr7.rQS1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22553 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mitchell Jones wrote in reply to my post: > >We make a wager -- if the motor is not OU, you agree not to post anything more > >about Newman on Vortex. > > ***{This is absurd. Evan has the right to decide what he will and will not > post. The question here is whether Newman's motor works. Period. If he, > Newman, will not supply a motor of his own for testing, then it is > reasonable to use the MinnKota motor as a substitute, since he claims it is > based on his design. But we will need Evan, who is apparently the only > conduit we have to Newman, to provide feedback during the testing process, > to ensure that it is conducted properly. Remember: it has been claimed by > Newman himself that there are difficulties associated with testing his > motors. He claimed, for example, that NIST screwed up their own testing by > grounding the motor. Since, presumably, we want to do a test that will > actually supply useful information, we need as much feedback from the > Newman camp as we can get. So let's drop these insulting suggestions that > Evan place duct tape across his mouth if the motor flunks Scott's test, and > start focusing on the question of how to determine whether the motor works. > --Mitchell Jones}*** > OK, I apologize for the comment on stopping posts about Newman. As long as other Vorts respond to Evan's posts, I guess they are still interested. (That part of the bet was mostly just supposed to be a humorous comment, but obviously some took it seriously.) On the other hand, I do not see why Evan or anyone else connected with Newman needs to help with the tests. Someone buying a trolling motor is not going to use it under any special laboratory conditions. They should expect to see the 5X performance if the advertising is not fraudulent. As for the question of grounding, it is hard to get a better ground than a metal motor submerged in a lake. Presumably the motor works under those conditions. There is not much to go wrong in this type of simple test -- measure power in and torque. But to be safe, Scott could run two sets of tests with the motor grounded and floating. Instead of suggesting a wager, I should have posed this simple question to Evan: Do you think the Minn Kota motor is OU or not? If not, how is it any better than the impressive new motors designed for electric cars that are near 100% efficiency? If it is OU, why has no one else reported that asounding fact? -- Bob Horst From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 20:41:18 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA01578; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 20:30:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 20:30:07 -0700 Message-ID: <059f01bde50f$d0809600$ba98a8cf hh2152186.www.surfsouth.com> From: "Bill Wallace" To: Subject: Re: Sending research to Stanford Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 23:27:42 -0400 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: <"fzuSW.0.TO.-WS1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22554 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Many of the scientists who have endorsed Joseph Newman's work have publicly >appeared and spoken out on his behalf. Their appearances have been >featured and documented on televised broadcasts. Several of these >individuals told me that they were subsequently innundated with telephone >calls and letters from both supporters who congratulated them for their >intellectual honesty as well as naysayers who attacked them for their >public endorsement of Joe's work. > OK, but why have they chosen not to put their own money or time into this? It seems to me an endorsement is not as much as a commitment as time or money, if they really believe in it why are they not jumping on joes bandwagon? If I really believed in it, and the money or fame it could bring, I would be flying out to joes house right now asking if I could move in and give him much of my time and efforts. An average professor makes what, 70 grand a year, certainly the sale of just a few of these would give him more, and regardless of money, look at his place in the history books, which I also think is important to several scientists, so again I ask why are they not putting the truly valuable fruits of their labor into this, time and money, instead of just endorsements? From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 21:29:14 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA20093; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 21:24:27 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 21:24:27 -0700 Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 00:22:27 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Minn Kota and Newman Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809210024_MC2-5A1C-2247 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"TeyUw2.0.tv4.xJT1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22555 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex; >INTERNET:kurtz imap2.asu.edu Lynn Kurtz may have come in late and missed part of the story. He writes: Suppose you go through with this and obtain and test the motor and find nothing abnormal. Then what? Well, who ever said that it was an official Newman motor in the first place? Newman says it, during his lectures. He holds up a Minn Kota motor and says it produces excess energy, and the design was stolen from him. He does not *demonstrate* that it produces excess, but then, he does not actually demonstrate that his own motor works either. Admittedly, the Minn Kota is a long shot, but I think there is no chance that Newman will come to live in Little's lab for two weeks, sleeping on the cot. The Minn Kota is the closest we will come to a Newman machine. Also, I expect it is better engineered and more reliable than his one-and-only remaining prototype, which requires frequent tweaking and repair. As I have said, I do not think Newman will ever allow any scientist to examine or test his machine. Mitchell Jones (I think it was) accused me of having no reason for saying this, but alas I have many reasons, and the list grows longer every day: First, no full-time Perpetual Motion Machine Man ever allows a scientist to examine his machine, for obvious reasons: those who believe their own claims are too stupid, and the others are too smart. Second, Newman and Soule say they have allowed tests in the past, and they have made some extravagant claims about the Ray-o-vac test, but I discount this. An engineer who followed this work, who wishes to remain anonomous, tells me that Ray-o-vac later examined the batteries with an SEM and determined they were damaged by the machine. As I understand it, the damage initially fooled them into thinking the batteries had been recharged. It merely looked like it was recharging. Although it would have been simple and logical to run the machine for a week to verify that it was recharging, apparently these people never thought to try that. I guess the Ray-o-vac man was not a rocket scientist. I'm told that when Ray-o-vac informed Newman of the final outcome of their investigation, he cut them off. Not only was there no long run, but as far my Informed Sources know, a Newman machine has never been run for more than a few hours in an official test. Third, based on Newman's lectures, my conversation with him, and Soule's remarks here, I think these people fail to understand basic experimental techniques, and issues like the functional differences between instantaneous meters, recording meters, and oscilliscopes. They appear to know nothing about dynamometers, despite the fact that they have been doing an experiment for 30 years which requires a dynamometer. They talk a lot about an advanced scientific theory which I do not understand and I cannot judge. Perhaps they have truly mastered this theory and this arcane stuff about "Fleming's Rule and Magnetic Attraction and Repulsion" (which I have never heard of). But I doubt that a person who lacks basic knowledge of instruments and experimental techniques could develop a Nobel-class theory. I said that Newman apparently "bamboozled" the Ray-o-vac man. That's my guess. I think Newman bamboozles himself too. I mean he confused the man, or flumoxed him. I would like to make it clear, for the record, that as far as I know Newman has never committed fraud. He has never raised money from investors or a down-payment for equipment. His activities are not illegal or harmful. My impression is that he sincerely believes his own claims. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 21:35:20 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA20261; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 21:25:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 21:25:37 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 23:35:19 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Minn Kota purchase contribution Resent-Message-ID: <"vkJ4C3.0.Vy4.1LT1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22556 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >To: Vortex > >I think it may be a good idea to purchase a Minn Kota motor. If Scott Little >has the time and he thinks it is worthwhile, I'll contribute $100 toward the >purchase of the machine. (My money, not I.E.'s.) Scott: let us know if you >decide to proceed. I expect four other contributors will step forward. > >During his lectures, Newman has held up a mass-produced motor which he said >based on a design stolen from him. I presume this was the Minn Kota motor. >Newman did not power up the motor or instrument it during the lectures, which >mystified his audience. At least, it mystified the people I spoke with. Why >bring the motor if you do not intend to prove what you say? Mitchell Jones >raises the possibility that the motor must be tested with a special protocol, >and Little will need to consult with Newman to make sure he is doing the test >correctly. That seems unlikely. I suppose a motor is a motor and they are all >tested the same way, but if a special test is required I expect Newman will >refuse to help, because this is a "stolen" motor. Scott Little should confer >with Newman about this before proceeding. > >For many practical reasons, I find hard to believe this company is selling o-u >equipment to the public. First, because it has not informed the customers they >are tapping a totally unknown source of energy in violation of known physics. >This might be illegal, and it is surely unethical. The mysterious energy might >conceivably pose a radiation threat or something like that. I believe Griggs >always informs his customers that minor excess energy anomalies can be >expected with his machine. It is not a selling point, because energy is so >cheap and the money saved in energy is dwarfed by other savings in >engineering, maintenance, safety, and other features. Perhaps Northland Marine >knows about the excess energy from the Minn Kota motor, but they want to keep >it quiet because they fear it will open a pandora's box of opposition, >hysteria, attacks by the Men In Black, and so on. It is inconceivable that >they have overlooked the excess energy, and they have forgotten to measure >motor performance. In marine and automotive applications motor performance is >critical. People's lives depend upon it. I think it is also extremely unlikely >that the excess would be overlooked during safety testing at U.L. or at >various Federal Agencies. Can anyone imagine a U.L. engineer shrugging her >shoulders and signing off on a violation of the First Law? Maybe in a comic >book . . . > >All in all, there is little chance these motor produce excess energy, but if >Scott wants to take the trouble to find out, I'm willing to help. > >- Jed Jed, Jed, Jed. From your comments above it is truly apparent that you do not understand the technology and the Theory of the Gyroscopic Massergy which Joe describes in his book. But I guess that's O.K. There is nothing "mysterious" about the energy, unless one chooses to "make it mysterious". Nor is the source of energy "totally unknown" as you describe. From this vantage point you do seem to wish to make it a bit more 'dramatic' than it is -- but once again, that's O.K. Yes, it certainly is not a "totally unknown" source of energy: Maxwell had an insight into its nature over a century ago when he stated that within the space of electric and magnetic bodies there is MATTER IN MOTION. With his innate, mechanical perceptions, Joe has deduced that this MATTER IN MOTION is 1) gyroscopic in nature (its most IMPORTANT characteristic) and 2) that it is literally the mechanical equivalent of Einstein's well-known equation. There is nothing magical, mystical, mysterious, or unknown about this --- unless one choose to make it so, unnecessarily. Nor does it in any way 'violate' the First Law --- on the contrary, as Joe has stated, this technology is an AFFIRMATION of the First Law. Best regards, Evan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 22:00:52 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA27524; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 21:57:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 21:57:13 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980920235851.0091d940 mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 23:58:51 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: MinnKota ultimatum Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"XWiQU3.0.wj6.eoT1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22557 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: First, thanks for all the advice. Good points have been raised and here's my distillation of them: 1. If Joe Newman will identify a particular MinnKota product and attest that it embodies his technology and therefore will exhibit an o-u power balance...i.e. it will produce more mechanical output power than the electrical power it consumes, then we will purchase that product and begin testing it immediately. (many thanks for the offers to help with the purchase but we'll pick up the tab in this case) 2. If Joe Newman does not feel that any MinnKota product complies sufficiently with his teachings to exhibit o-u performance, then we are not interested in testing any MinnKota motors. 3. In the latter case, we remain willing to test any prototype motor that Joe Newman will supply to us, provided that he will attest that it DOES embody his technology and WILL exhibit an o-u power balance. 4. We will perform these tests free of charge to Joe Newman...and we will publicize the results of these tests. Our goal here is to determine once and for all whether or not Joe Newman's technology is viable. If it is, we will do everything in our power to speed the commercial development of it. It is is not, we want to put it completely out of the way so all of us can continue unimpeded the quest for a viable new energy technology. 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 Sep 20 22:30:21 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA04672; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 22:25:02 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 22:25:02 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 00:35:07 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Sending research to Stanford Resent-Message-ID: <"QIyho3.0.e81.jCU1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22559 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >>Many of the scientists who have endorsed Joseph Newman's work have publicly >>appeared and spoken out on his behalf. Their appearances have been >>featured and documented on televised broadcasts. Several of these >>individuals told me that they were subsequently innundated with telephone >>calls and letters from both supporters who congratulated them for their >>intellectual honesty as well as naysayers who attacked them for their >>public endorsement of Joe's work. >> > > >OK, but why have they chosen not to put their own money or time into this? >It seems to me an endorsement is not as much as a commitment as time or >money, if they really believe in it why are they not jumping on joes >bandwagon? If I really believed in it, and the money or fame it could >bring, I would be flying out to joes house right now asking if I could move >in and give him much of my time and efforts. An average professor makes >what, 70 grand a year, certainly the sale of just a few of these would give >him more, and regardless of money, look at his place in the history books, >which I also think is important to several scientists, so again I ask why >are they not putting the truly valuable fruits of their labor into this, >time and money, instead of just endorsements? A number of these individuals HAVE invested in Joe's work.... AFTER (I might add) they became convinced of its validity. And many of them certainly did put their time into it --- travelling, for instance, at their on time and at their own expense to Washington, D.C. to speak out on his behalf. One individual in particular worked extensively with Joe in helping him to construct the secondary coil system on his largest unit. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 22:30:33 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA04593; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 22:25:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 22:25:00 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 00:35:04 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Minn Kota and Newman Resent-Message-ID: <"FkFhC.0.771.hCU1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22558 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Mitchell Jones wrote in reply to my post: > >> >We make a wager -- if the motor is not OU, you agree not to post >>anything more >> >about Newman on Vortex. >> >> ***{This is absurd. Evan has the right to decide what he will and will not >> post. The question here is whether Newman's motor works. Period. If he, >> Newman, will not supply a motor of his own for testing, then it is >> reasonable to use the MinnKota motor as a substitute, since he claims it is >> based on his design. But we will need Evan, who is apparently the only >> conduit we have to Newman, to provide feedback during the testing process, >> to ensure that it is conducted properly. Remember: it has been claimed by >> Newman himself that there are difficulties associated with testing his >> motors. He claimed, for example, that NIST screwed up their own testing by >> grounding the motor. Since, presumably, we want to do a test that will >> actually supply useful information, we need as much feedback from the >> Newman camp as we can get. So let's drop these insulting suggestions that >> Evan place duct tape across his mouth if the motor flunks Scott's test, and >> start focusing on the question of how to determine whether the motor works. >> --Mitchell Jones}*** >> > >OK, I apologize for the comment on stopping posts about Newman. As long >as other >Vorts respond to Evan's posts, I guess they are still interested. (That >part of >the bet was mostly just supposed to be a humorous comment, but obviously >some took >it seriously.) > >On the other hand, I do not see why Evan or anyone else connected with >Newman needs >to help with the tests. Someone buying a trolling motor is not going to use it >under any special laboratory conditions. They should expect to see the 5X >performance if the advertising is not fraudulent. As for the question of >grounding, it is hard to get a better ground than a metal motor submerged in a >lake. Presumably the motor works under those conditions. There is not >much to go >wrong in this type of simple test -- measure power in and torque. But to >be safe, >Scott could run two sets of tests with the motor grounded and floating. > >Instead of suggesting a wager, I should have posed this simple question to >Evan: >Do you think the Minn Kota motor is OU or not? If not, how is it any >better than >the impressive new motors designed for electric cars that are near 100% >efficiency? If it is OU, why has no one else reported that asounding fact? > >-- Bob Horst Dear Bob, Thanks for your comments. Yep. Since Joe is not directly connected to internet, I am naturally placed in the position of 'intermediary' --- to one degree or another. Well, I'm walking a "fine line" here because there are LEGAL actions now under way regarding the MinnKota situation. Yes, at the very least, I do believe that specific MinnKota motor models manufactured at certain times are OU. MinnKota has been well aware of Joe's position regarding their usage of his technology vis-a-vis Roger Hastings. The principal MinnKota dealer in Mobile told Joseph Newman that up to the time of Joe's notification to MinnKota about their utilization of his technology without his permission, he (the dealer) was awaiting delivery (within 1-2 weeks) of a more advanced & larger model (based upon the 46-lb thrust model's specs) which MinnKota had announced. Then, the dealer reported that everything -- all new information from MinnKota -- _stopped_. No more updates. No more new brochures. And the dealer then received word that the anticipated delivery would be delayed for some time. It is Joe's position that the individuals associated with MinnKota (especially those in decision-making positions who are connected with the oil industry) who responsible for utilizing his technology, have sought to employ it in an market that essentially does _not_ compete with the internal combustion technology: the trolling market. At the same time, the improvements to the MinnKota trolling motor (given to MinnKota by Hastings from Joseph Newman) have been intended to capture a large share of this particular market. I'll state it now (and will, no doubt, state it again): due to the above legal action, if you wish the technical specifics of the aspects of Joe's technology which have been utilized by MinnKota (as disclosed to Hastings), you will need to contact Joe directly at: (602) 977-2813. Best regards, Evan Soule' From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 22:39:31 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA14773; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 22:36:03 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 22:36:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 00:36:56 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Minn Kota Resent-Message-ID: <"OMSsI.0.lc3.1NU1s" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22560 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: J>It is incorrect to only say "Joe teaches low current and HIGH voltage." Correct. One of the best examples of this is the 900 pound motor with the 60 pound rotor which Joe built some years ago. It ran on 12 volts. The university of Mississippi (IIRC) tested it and found it well over unity. That was the motor which was shown on TV by Garland Robinette. That particular motor ran for several hours on really "dead" AA cells. I was there, and I furnished the batteries. I put them (new) in a flashlight and left the flashlight turned on for a week and a half - they were DEAD! Ralph From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 22:50:03 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA13123; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 22:49:06 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 22:49:06 -0700 From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: MinnKota ultimatum Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 05:50:18 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <360ee854.434649367 mail-hub> References: <3.0.5.32.19980920235851.0091d940 mail.eden.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980920235851.0091d940 mail.eden.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"IR-WD3.0.zC3.HZU1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22561 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sun, 20 Sep 1998 23:58:51 -0500, Scott Little wrote: >First, thanks for all the advice. Good points have been raised and here's >my distillation of them: > >1. If Joe Newman will identify a particular MinnKota product and attest >that it embodies his technology and therefore will exhibit an o-u power >balance...i.e. it will produce more mechanical output power than the >electrical power it consumes, then we will purchase that product and begin >testing it immediately. (many thanks for the offers to help with the >purchase but we'll pick up the tab in this case) Hi Scott. Note that your wording above is not strictly in agreement with Joe's statements AFAIK. His claim is that the total power out exceeds the total power in. Not all output power is guaranteed to be mechanical. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 22:57:31 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA14396; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 22:51:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 22:51:18 -0700 From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Newman vs Minn-kota Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 05:52:30 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <360fe927.434860718 mail-hub> References: <3605B45E.62CF lcia.com> In-Reply-To: <3605B45E.62CF lcia.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"mTuf.0.mW3.LbU1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22562 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sun, 20 Sep 1998 22:05:18 -0400, RON BRENNEN wrote: >Hi all: >I don't see any comparison between Newman's motor and Minn-Kota's >trolling motors. Newman's motor in his demo weighs 400 lbs. and >has no iron in the core. The Minn-Kota described in its parts >outline on its web page is an ordinary motor with an armature >and brushes. It's claim to be 5 times more efficient than its >other motors is because their other motors have resistors for >speed control. The newer motors have PWM. >Ron Brennen Perhaps if the input current to a Minn-Kota motor is measured with a simple mass-movement ammeter, it will appear to be OU. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 23:04:52 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA16968; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 23:03:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 23:03:21 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 01:13:26 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Minn Kota and Newman Resent-Message-ID: <"Y5ZhN2.0.194.fmU1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22563 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >To: Vortex; >INTERNET:kurtz imap2.asu.edu > > >As I have said, I do not think Newman will ever allow any scientist to examine >or test his machine. Mitchell Jones (I think it was) accused me of having no >reason for saying this, but alas I have many reasons, and the list grows >longer every day: Dear Jed, Thanks for your comments. As I've stated before, over 30 scientists have both examined and tested his prototypes -- and signed legal affidavits attesting to their operability per his technology. Your above statement is factually incorrect. > >First, no full-time Perpetual Motion Machine Man ever allows a scientist to >examine his machine, for obvious reasons: those who believe their own claims >are too stupid, and the others are too smart. Jed -- you indeed a Perpetual Motion Machine Man: you are perpetually believing that something is "perpetual motion" when it is not. Of course, you are certainly welcome to believe anything you wish. > >Second, Newman and Soule say they have allowed tests in the past, and they >have made some extravagant claims about the Ray-o-vac test, but I discount >this. An engineer who followed this work, who wishes to remain anonomous, >tells me that Ray-o-vac later examined the batteries with an SEM and >determined they were damaged by the machine. As I understand it, the damage >initially fooled them into thinking the batteries had been recharged. It >merely looked like it was recharging. Although it would have been simple and >logical to run the machine for a week to verify that it was recharging, >apparently these people never thought to try that. I guess the Ray-o-vac man >was not a rocket scientist. I'm told that when Ray-o-vac informed Newman of >the final outcome of their investigation, he cut them off. Not only was there >no long run, but as far my Informed Sources know, a Newman machine has never >been run for more than a few hours in an official test. Well, Jed, you get an "F" for inaccurate comments, but a "A" for effort. Who is the "anonymous" engineer? Secondly, both the chief chemist as well as the engineering staff at Rayovac verified that their own batteries had been seriously damaged through the overcharging effect of the Newman Motor/Generator. This statement by yourself "takes the cake": I'm told that when Ray-o-vac informed Newman of >the final outcome of their investigation, he cut them off. Whatever anonymous person told you this was either intentionally lying to you or is very sadly misinformed. Joe signed an agreement with Rayovac to produce a battery which would hold up to the back-charging effect of his system. He was specifically told by the CEO of Rayovac that they would _immediately_ proceed with the design of such a battery. After three months, Joe was told that Rayovac had done _nothing_. Why? Spellman of Rayovac informed Joe that right after Rayovac signed the agreement with Joe, the company obtained the largest federal government contract in the history of the company and that all the company's staff time would be devoted to this contract. Joe told them that, as far as he was concerned, the agreement was null and void. > >Third, based on Newman's lectures, my conversation with him, and Soule's >remarks here, I think these people fail to understand basic experimental >techniques, and issues like the functional differences between instantaneous >meters, recording meters, and oscilliscopes. They appear to know nothing about >dynamometers, despite the fact that they have been doing an experiment for 30 >years which requires a dynamometer. They talk a lot about an advanced >scientific theory which I do not understand and I cannot judge. Perhaps they >have truly mastered this theory and this arcane stuff about "Fleming's Rule >and Magnetic Attraction and Repulsion" (which I have never heard of). But I >doubt that a person who lacks basic knowledge of instruments and experimental >techniques could develop a Nobel-class theory. > >I said that Newman apparently "bamboozled" the Ray-o-vac man. That's my guess. >I think Newman bamboozles himself too. I mean he confused the man, or flumoxed >him. I would like to make it clear, for the record, that as far as I know >Newman has never committed fraud. He has never raised money from investors or >a down-payment for equipment. His activities are not illegal or harmful. My >impression is that he sincerely believes his own claims. > >- Jed Thanks for your "opinion" Jed. It is also my opinion that you have "bamboozled" yourself. Best regards, Evan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 23:24:24 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA19665; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 23:20:08 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 23:20:08 -0700 Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 02:17:35 -0400 From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Phone number Sender: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" Message-ID: <199809210220_MC2-5A1C-298D compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"YDUwB2.0.6p4.N0V1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22564 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Evan, >> The phone/fax are the same number in Colorado -- (303) 814-3403. << Many thanks - Norman Horwood From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 20 23:54:51 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA25113; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 23:47:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 23:47:52 -0700 Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 00:49:18 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: fjsparb sprintmail.com Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC, HOT FUSION In-Reply-To: <36050C28.55D5 sprintmail.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY=------------597455F18FF Content-ID: Resent-Message-ID: <"gW8CB2.0.J86.NQV1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22565 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to mime docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. --------------597455F18FF Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-ID: Hi Fredrick, Hope it wasn't earth-shaking news, :( Not sure what your using there for an editor, but it is NOT coming through to everyone. It seems to have a 14KB attachment ref:hot fusion?. most NON-MS listers usually delete these. IS THERE SOMETHING in your MS program you can set to make it readable on the net?? I've a friend who is also trying to send MS Word stuff (unreadable here), so if you could reply with this message in net-readable format, AND how/what you did to your MS file, It would be appreciated. Your "Attchmnt" says it is Text! But I think you have to have MS* or something to read it.??. don't know. I'm just "responding TO: all = Yes" so IT may or may not even return to you.. you MAY be able to read it ok, wish all on the list could. -=se=- steve (you wrote the following) ekwall ------------------------------------- On Sun, 20 Sep 1998, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: file:///C:\EB/_1.htm#first_hit <-----~wierd?~ >From fjsparb sprintmail.com Mon Sep 21 00:27:32 1998 Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 08:07:36 -0600 From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: fjsparb sprintmail.com Subject: OFF TOPIC, HOT FUSION Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 07:12:04 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com file:///C:\EB/_1.htm#first_hit [Part 2, Text/HTML 230 lines] <--~looks like a big file?~ [Unable to print this part] [Try V to view or S to Save] ------------------------------- hope this makes sense, unix/pine has/had been working on this list for years! steve (html?/MS*? is not meant for ascii e-mail:) ekwall --------------597455F18FF Content-Type: TEXT/HTML; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-ID: Content-Description:
Britannica CD Help The Technology of War: MODERN WEAPONS AND WEAPON SYSTEMS: Nuclear weapons: THE DEVELOPMENT OF FUSION WEAPONS ... continued from

The Technology of War

Table of Contents

THE DEVELOPMENT OF FUSION WEAPONS

The United States.
U.S. research on thermonuclear weapons started from a conversation in September 1941 between Fermi and Teller. Fermi wondered if the explosion of a fission weapon could ignite a mass of deuterium sufficiently to begin thermonuclear fusion. (Deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen with one proton and one neutron in the nucleus--i.e., twice the normal weight--makes up 0.015 percent of natural hydrogen and can be separated in quantity by electrolysis and distillation. It exists in liquid form only below about -417{degree} F, or -250{degree} C.) Teller undertook to analyze the thermonuclear processes in some detail and presented his findings to a group of theoretical physicists convened by Oppenheimer in Berkeley in the summer of 1942. One participant, Emil Konopinski, suggested that the use of tritium be investigated as a thermonuclear fuel, an insight that would later be important to most designs. (Tritium, an isotope of hydrogen with one proton and two neutrons in the nucleus--i.e., three times the normal weight--does not exist in nature except in trace amounts, but it can be made by irradiating lithium in a nuclear reactor. It is radioactive and has a half-life of 12.5 years.)

As a result of these discussions the participants concluded that a weapon based on thermonuclear fusion was possible. When the Los Alamos laboratory was being planned, a small research program on the Super, as it came to be known, was included. Several conferences were held at the laboratory in late April 1943 to acquaint the new staff members with the existing state of knowledge and the direction of the research program. The consensus was that modest thermonuclear research should be pursued along theoretical lines. Teller proposed more intensive investigations, and some work did proceed, but the more urgent task of developing a fission weapon always took precedence--a necessary prerequisite for a hydrogen bomb in any event.

In the fall of 1945, after the success of the atomic bomb and the end of World War II, the future of the Manhattan Project, including Los Alamos and the other facilities, was unclear. Government funding was severely reduced, many scientists returned to universities and to their careers, and contractor companies turned to other pursuits. The Atomic Energy Act, signed by President Truman on Aug. 1, 1946, established the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), replacing the Manhattan Engineer District, and gave it civilian authority over all aspects of atomic energy, including oversight of nuclear warhead research, development, testing, and production.

From April 18 to 20, 1946, a conference led by Teller at Los Alamos reviewed the status of the Super. At that time it was believed that a fission weapon could be used to ignite one end of a cylinder of liquid deuterium and that the resulting thermonuclear reaction would self-propagate to the other end. This conceptual design was known as the "classical Super."

One of the two central design problems was how to ignite the thermonuclear fuel. It was recognized early on that a mixture of deuterium and tritium theoretically could be ignited at lower temperatures and would have a faster reaction time than deuterium alone, but the question of how to achieve ignition remained unresolved. The other problem, equally difficult, was whether and under what conditions burning might proceed in thermonuclear fuel once ignition had taken place. An exploding thermonuclear weapon involves many extremely complicated, interacting physical and nuclear processes. The speeds of the exploding materials can be up to millions of feet per second, temperatures and pressures are greater than those at the centre of the Sun, and time scales are billionths of a second. To resolve whether the "classical Super" or any other design would work required accurate numerical models of these processes--a formidable task, since the computers that would be needed to perform the calculations were still under development. Also, the requisite fission triggers were not yet ready, and the limited resources of Los Alamos could not support an extensive program.

On Sept. 23, 1949, Truman announced that "we have evidence that within recent weeks an atomic explosion occurred in the U.S.S.R." This first Soviet test stimulated an intense, four-month, secret debate about whether to proceed with the hydrogen bomb project. One of the strongest statements of opposition against proceeding with a hydrogen bomb program came from the General Advisory Committee (GAC) of the AEC, chaired by Oppenheimer. In their report of Oct. 30, 1949, the majority recommended "strongly against" initiating an all-out effort, believing "that extreme dangers to mankind inherent in the proposal wholly outweigh any military advantages that could come from this development." "A super bomb," they went on to say, "might become a weapon of genocide." They believed that "a super bomb should never be produced." Nevertheless, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the State and Defense departments, the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, and a special subcommittee of the National Security Council all recommended proceeding with the hydrogen bomb. Truman announced on Jan. 31, 1950, that he had directed the AEC to continue its work on all forms of atomic weapons, including hydrogen bombs. In March, Los Alamos went on a six-day workweek.

In the months that followed Truman's decision, the prospect of actually being able to build a hydrogen bomb became less and less likely. The mathematician Stanislaw M. Ulam, with the assistance of Cornelius J. Everett, had undertaken calculations of the amount of tritium that would be needed for ignition of the classical Super. Their results were spectacular and, to Teller, discouraging: the amount needed was estimated to be enormous. In the summer of 1950 more detailed and thorough calculations by other members of the Los Alamos Theoretical Division confirmed Ulam's estimates. This meant that the cost of the Super program would be prohibitive.

Also in the summer of 1950, Fermi and Ulam calculated that liquid deuterium probably would not burn--that is, there would probably be no self-sustaining and propagating reaction. Barring surprises, therefore, the theoretical work to 1950 indicated that every important assumption regarding the viability of the classical Super was wrong. If success was to come, it would have to be accomplished by other means.

The other means became apparent between February and April 1951, following breakthroughs achieved at Los Alamos. One breakthrough was the recognition that the burning of thermonuclear fuel would be more efficient if a high density were achieved throughout the fuel prior to raising its temperature, rather than the classical Super approach of just raising the temperature in one area and then relying on the propagation of thermonuclear reactions to heat the remaining fuel. A second breakthrough was the recognition that these conditions--high compression and high temperature throughout the fuel--could be achieved by containing and converting the radiation from an exploding fission weapon and then using this energy to compress a separate component containing the thermonuclear fuel.

The major figures in these breakthroughs were Ulam and Teller. In December 1950 Ulam had proposed a new fission weapon design, using the mechanical shock of an ordinary fission bomb to compress to a very high density a second fissile core. (This two-stage fission device was conceived entirely independently of the thermonuclear program, its aim being to use fissionable materials more economically.) Early in 1951 Ulam went to see Teller and proposed that the two-stage approach be used to compress and ignite a thermonuclear secondary. Teller suggested radiation implosion, rather than mechanical shock, as the mechanism for compressing the thermonuclear fuel in the second stage. On March 9, 1951, Teller and Ulam presented a report containing both alternatives, entitled "On Heterocatalytic Detonations I. Hydrodynamic Lenses and Radiation Mirrors." A second report, dated April 4, by Teller, included some extensive calculations by Frederic de Hoffmann and elaborated on how a thermonuclear bomb could be constructed. The two-stage radiation implosion design proposed by these reports, which led to the modern concept of thermonuclear weapons, became known as the Teller-Ulam configuration.

It was immediately clear to all scientists concerned that these new ideas--achieving a high density in the thermonuclear fuel by compression using a fission primary--provided for the first time a firm basis for a fusion weapon. Without hesitation, Los Alamos adopted the new program. Gordon Dean, chairman of the AEC, convened a meeting at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, hosted by Oppenheimer, on June 16-18, 1951, where the new idea was discussed. In attendance were the GAC members, AEC commissioners, and key scientists and consultants from Los Alamos and Princeton. The participants were unanimously in favour of active and rapid pursuit of the Teller-Ulam principle.

Just prior to the conference, on May 8 at Enewetak atoll in the western Pacific, a test explosion called George had successfully used a fission bomb to ignite a small quantity of deuterium and tritium. The original purpose of George had been to confirm the burning of these thermonuclear fuels (about which there had never been any doubt), but with the new conceptual understanding contributed by Teller and Ulam, the test provided the bonus of successfully demonstrating radiation implosion.

In September 1951, Los Alamos proposed a test of the Teller-Ulam concept for November 1952. Engineering of the device, nicknamed Mike, began in October 1951, but unforeseen difficulties required a major redesign of the experiment in March 1952. The Mike device weighed 82 tons, owing in part to cryogenic (low-temperature) refrigeration equipment necessary to keep the deuterium in liquid form. It was successfully detonated during Operation Ivy, on Nov. 1, 1952 (local time), at Enewetak. The explosion achieved a yield of 10.4 million tons of TNT, or 500 times larger than the Nagasaki bomb, and it produced a crater 6,240 feet in diameter and 164 feet deep.

With the Teller-Ulam configuration proved, deliverable thermonuclear weapons were designed and initially tested during Operation Castle in 1954. The first test of the series, conducted on March 1, 1954 (local time), was called Bravo. It used solid lithium deuteride rather than liquid deuterium and produced a yield of 15 megatons, 1,000 times as large as the Hiroshima bomb. Here the principal thermonuclear reaction was the fusion of deuterium and tritium. The tritium was produced in the weapon itself by neutron bombardment of the lithium-6 isotope in the course of the fusion reaction. Using lithium deuteride instead of liquid deuterium eliminated the need for cumbersome cryogenic equipment.

With completion of Castle, the feasibility of lightweight, solid-fuel thermonuclear weapons was proved. Vast quantities of tritium would not be needed after all. New possibilities for adaptation of thermonuclear weapons to various kinds of missiles began to be explored.

continued ...

Copyright (c) 1995 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Show Index links. --------------597455F18FF-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 01:40:06 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA11171; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 01:39:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 01:39:23 -0700 Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 02:40:48 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: David Dennard cc: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: Whirlpower Introduction AND oct28.98 In-Reply-To: <199809210133.SAA26258 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"ck84J2.0.Tk2.w2X1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22566 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sun, 20 Sep 1998, David Dennard wrote: [snip] > > Now, I am here. I hope to have a good discussion. Since it was just > > announced > > on Network TV that during this past year almost everything science thought > > about > > the vortex has been proven to be wrong. So if you are going by "Old Dogma" > > in > > your arguments you might want to catch up on the latest. > > find out if Whirlpower works, not just telling me it doesn't. [snip] > > > > Thank you, > > David Dennard > > Hi David, Being new, Welcome! :) although the double "> >" fowarded charachters from 'yourself' first threw me. Recent post(s) included the following: (see below) Is this similiar to Yours ? -=se=- {insert oct28-V.day.1998} ---------------------------- >From zpe pdq.net Wed Aug 19 22:03:37 1998 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 20:12:28 -0500 From: ZPE Reply-To: freenrg-l eskimo.com To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" , "freenrg-l eskimo.com" , "'keelynet dallastexas.net'" , "'editor infinite-energy.com'" , "'haisch starspot.com'" , "'halfox slkc.uswest.net'" , "'ine padrak.com'" , "'mica world.std.com'" , "'paynen tesla.org'" Subject: VORTEX MYSTERIES SOLVED!... Countdown to Disclosure.....10...... Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 19:43:35 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: freenrg-l eskimo.com [The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set] [Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set] [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly] Greetings to all new energy pioneers, The time has come to make an announcement that many of you have been waiting to hear for a great many years. While full disclosure will not take place until 10 weeks have passed from the date of this announcement, this is the first of a series of messages to prepare each of you for our final and complete disclosure and to make a final appeal to potential financial partners. ANNOUNCING... The secrets of thermodynamic phenomenon known as the "vortex" have been discovered, its mysteries have been solved and the technology that will utilize it to produce useable amounts of energy has been identified. For details, visit our new web site created for this announcement: http://freeweb.pdq.net/zpe ^ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 01:46:05 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA12311; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 01:45:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 01:45:22 -0700 Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 02:46:46 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: "freenrg-l eskimo.com" cc: "vortex-l eskimo.com" , "'keelynet dallastexas.net'" , "'editor infinite-energy.com'" , "'haisch starspot.com'" , "'halfox slkc.uswest.net'" , "'ine padrak.com'" , "'mica world.std.com'" , "'paynen tesla.org'" Subject: Oops :} Re: VORTEX MYSTERIES SOLVED!... Countdown to Disclosure.....10...... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Jvpy63.0.E03.X8X1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22567 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi all, (dumb me, dumb me:} <-- sheepish grin deserved (sigh) Oops SORRY about that! just realized i resent count 10 to everyone. I promise to edit/clip & cut TO:'s and CC:'s in the future. My fault. Please ignore last mailing, it was sent to david dennard as a first (singular) posting! -=se=- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 01:48:15 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA12389; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 01:45:36 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 01:45:36 -0700 Message-ID: <033e01bde53c$48a95fa0$e7b4bfa8 default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC, HOT FUSION Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 02:45:58 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_033B_01BDE509.F62AAC20" 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: <"hF_5t.0.Q13.l8X1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22568 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_033B_01BDE509.F62AAC20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable -----Original Message----- From: Steve Ekwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: fjsparb sprintmail.com Date: Monday, September 21, 1998 12:49 AM Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC, HOT FUSION =20 =20 Hi Fredrick,=20 =20 Hope it wasn't earth-shaking news, :( Not sure what your using there for an editor, but it is NOT coming through to everyone. It seems to have a 14KB attachment ref:hot = fusion?. most NON-MS listers usually delete these. IS THERE SOMETHING in your = MS program you can set to make it readable on the net?? I've a = friend who is also trying to send MS Word stuff (unreadable here), so if you = could reply with this message in net-readable format, AND how/what you did = to your MS file, It would be appreciated. Your "Attchmnt" says it is = Text! But I think you have to have MS* or something to read it.??. don't = know. I'm just "responding TO: all =3D Yes" so IT may or may not even = return to you.. you MAY be able to read it ok, wish all on the list could. -=3Dse=3D- steve (you wrote the following) ekwall ------------------------------------- =20 On Sun, 20 Sep 1998, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: =20 file:///C:\EB/_1.htm#first_hit <-----~wierd?~ =20 =20 >From fjsparb sprintmail.com Mon Sep 21 00:27:32 1998 Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 08:07:36 -0600 From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: fjsparb sprintmail.com Subject: OFF TOPIC, HOT FUSION Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 07:12:04 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com =20 file:///C:\EB/_1.htm#first_hit =20 [Part 2, Text/HTML 230 lines] <--~looks like a big = file?~ [Unable to print this part] [Try V to view or S to Save] =20 ------------------------------- =20 hope this makes sense,=20 unix/pine has/had been working on this list for years!=20 steve (html?/MS*? is not meant for ascii e-mail:) ekwall ------=_NextPart_000_033B_01BDE509.F62AAC20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 
-----Original = Message-----
From:=20 Steve Ekwall <ekwall2@diac.com>
To: = vortex-l@eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Cc:= =20 fjsparb@sprintmail.com=20 <fjsparb@sprintmail.com>
= Date:=20 Monday, September 21, 1998 12:49 AM
Subject: Re: OFF = TOPIC,=20 HOT FUSION

Hi Fredrick,

Hope it wasn't=20 earth-shaking news, :(
  Not sure what your using there for = an=20 editor, but it is NOT coming
through to everyone. It seems to = have a 14KB=20 attachment ref:hot fusion?.
most NON-MS listers usually delete = these. IS=20 THERE SOMETHING in your
MS program you can set to make it = readable on=20 the net?? I've a friend who
is also trying to send MS Word stuff=20 (unreadable here), so if you could
reply with this message in=20 net-readable format, AND how/what you did to
your MS file, It = would be=20 appreciated. Your "Attchmnt" says it is Text!
But I = think you=20 have to have MS* or something to read it.??. don't know.
I'm just = "responding TO: all =3D Yes" so IT may or may not even = return=20 to
you.. you MAY be able to read it ok, wish all on the list=20 could.
-=3Dse=3D-
steve (you wrote the following)=20 ekwall
-------------------------------------

On Sun, 20 = Sep 1998,=20 Frederick J. Sparber wrote:

     file:///C:\EB/_1.htm#first_hit           =20 <-----~wierd?~
    

>From fjsparb@sprintmail.com = Mon Sep 21=20 00:27:32 1998
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 08:07:36 -0600
From:=20 "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb@sprintmail.com>
= Reply-To:=20 vortex-l@eskimo.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: = fjsparb@sprintmail.com
Subj= ect:=20 OFF TOPIC, HOT FUSION
Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 07:12:04 = -0700=20 (PDT)
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com

file:///C:\EB/_1.htm#first_hit

 =20 [Part 2, Text/HTML  230=20 = lines]            = <--~looks like a big file?~
  [Unable to print this=20 part]
  [Try V to view or S to=20 Save]

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

hope this makes = sense,=20
unix/pine has/had been working on this list for years!
steve = (html?/MS*? is not meant for ascii e-mail:)=20 ekwall
------=_NextPart_000_033B_01BDE509.F62AAC20-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 05:20:03 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA19051; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 05:19:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 05:19:09 -0700 Message-ID: <19980921121959.7649.qmail hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [194.73.204.24] From: "Rob King" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Bouyancy Question Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 05:19:58 PDT Resent-Message-ID: <"xOCGV.0.af4.zGa1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22569 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Vorts, If you had a barrel filled with water with a bottle of compressed gas attached to it and allow it to sink in a very deep tank, say 1km. Then when it reaches the bottom the gas is released into the barrel and the barrel heads towards the surface. Will the energy released while it heads for the surface be more than enough to recharge the compressed cylinder? You could use a lifting bag which will increase in size as it gets nearer the surface. Rob King ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 07:02:46 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA12811; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 06:59:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 06:59:13 -0700 Message-Id: <199809211353.JAA03373 mercury.mv.net> From: "Ed Wall" To: Subject: Re: Minn Kota Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 10:01:06 -0400 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: <"9gmTM2.0.483.mkb1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22570 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Evan, Do you suppose that you could persuade Ralph (see below) to contact Scott Little, or preferably post to Vortex, and provide details? Vortex is not a gathering of believers of any particular set of claims. It consists of people critically-minded and usually technically aware who are willing to consider what is ordinarily considered to be foolishness. There have been many claims that seem to amount to nothing with many devices. Newman has been going on for many years about his machines. It is hard to believe that anyone with the sort of technology we so earnestly seek could fail so completely for so long to communicate. It is obvious to you that people are interested in the claims Newman has made. So, you've got our attention, will you cooperate with Earthtech, or is this just another dog-and-pony show? I think Earthtech has shown excellent capability as experimentalists, but performing experiments with many uncertainties, they admit their negative results could be false. That is why Joe Newman should be present. Perhaps, in a genuine effort to resolve this mess, the testing should be *fully* videotaped, including any disagreements or disputes. If I only see Scott Little concluding underunity and Joe Newman vehemently claiming to having been cheated again, it means nothing but a non-surprising waste of time and money. I have heard that Dr. Hastings reversed his opinion on the technology. Is this true? What about other previous expert supporters? I consider it unlikely, but possible that he (they) recognized valuable principles for other engineering projects, like Minn Kota, in which case, thorough independent testing of it should quickly settle the dispute. Ed Wall NERL ---------- > From: Evan Soule > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: Re: Minn Kota > Date: Monday, September 21, 1998 2:36 AM > > J>It is incorrect to only say "Joe teaches low current and HIGH voltage." > > Correct. One of the best examples of this is the 900 pound motor > with the 60 pound rotor which Joe built some years ago. It ran on 12 > volts. The university of Mississippi (IIRC) tested it and found it well > over unity. > > That was the motor which was shown on TV by Garland Robinette. That > particular motor ran for several hours on really "dead" AA cells. I was > there, and I furnished the batteries. I put them (new) in a flashlight > and left the flashlight turned on for a week and a half - they were > DEAD! > > Ralph > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 08:13:00 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA32757; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 08:09:46 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 08:09:46 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com ) Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com Message-ID: <36066C12.E0C173D6 css.mot.com> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 10:09:06 -0500 From: John Steck Organization: Motorola PCS - Rapid Tooling Applications X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Newmans Offer References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"jlSmK3.0.k_7.wmc1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22571 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Evan Soule wrote: > Joe's response and offer to you, John: > > Please submit to him in writing (as a Confirmed Purchasing Order from > Motorola) orders for his Motor/Generator units. You and he can discuss the > terms of pricing/quantity/operating specs/delivery time. Joe has stated > that a suitable Confirmed Order (from Motorola) will allow him to obtain > the financing he needs to launch commercial production. Hey that's great Evan, but I can see why Joe insists that people call him direct. If you re-read my offer you will understand how you butchered it. The offer wasn't made by me on behalf of Motorola. I do not have the contract authority to purchase unproven technology. I don't care how many people you line up to testify, I would get laughed out of the room without a working sample. Place an order no less! HA! For what????? What would you have me put in the description column on the purchase order that wouldn't be submitted as evidence in lawsuit for breach of contract? It Joe wants Motorola's name on it, Joe will have to present his technology to us the same way everyone else is required to; under the terms of a notarized two way non-disclosure agreement, a complete, working unit that operates exactly as claimed, with proof of ownership, supplied to us, at the inventor's expense, for whatever testing we deem neccessary, for whatever time period we feel appropriate. You and I both know that will never happen. Based on his actions and statements I think Joe is too paranoid and neurotic to ever permit such good faith agreement (sleeping on a cot at Little's lab, indeed!). .....and I would let Joe know that unless he wants a very expensive slap on the hand, you both better think twice before attaching Motorola's good name to any of his stuff before the above conditions are satisfied. My inquiry does not constitute or imply endorsement by Motorola Inc. of fitness for a particular or indirect purpose or application. There is an entire legal department just down the hall waiting for even rumors of bonehead moves like that. That IS a threat. > And no, I am not an "agent" of Joseph Newman. I believe in his work and I > have assisted him for over 15 years. HA HA HA HA HA HA ROF That's a good one. Need I remind you your address is : josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) If you don't know the legal ramifications of that you are a complete fool. If Joe knows about it, and still permits it, he is even a bigger one. I don't know who you think you are fooling. You've present yourself as an agent of JN here since day one. Let's see..... what was that title that used to be on your signature again.... Director of Information? Just because you've stopped putting it there does not mean it never was there. Do I need to pull the archives? Misrepresentation and the use of another's name to claim or perpetuate legitimacy is intent to commit fraud. If this is news to you, you may want to talk to a lawyer. I highly suggest change your verbage, get a different email address, or find a new batch of suckers to twist facts with. Working for free is not a loophole, it's just stupid. My offer is withdrawn. I don't want to be associated with you or Joe in any manner. I don't think there exists a capacity to do business in good faith and subsequently it is my opinion that nothing good will ever come of any relationship no matter how far removed. New technology is hard enough to sell even when the inventor is agreeable and forthright. You guys are just plain shooting yourselves in the foot. Since you admittably have no bearing on Joe or his alleged technology this will be the last email I will waste on you. I have no use for PR people. If Joe wants to come clean and do business, he can contact me, but the mountain will not come to Mohamad. (don't worry, I wont be holding my breath) Best wishes and good luck with your endeavors. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John E. Steck Senior Mechanical Engineer Rapid Tooling Applications Motorola, Libertyville, IL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces, It is not God who kills the children. Not Fate that butchers them or Destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It's us. Only us." - Rorschach From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 08:35:33 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA05815; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 08:31:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 08:31:32 -0700 Message-ID: <000101bde574$fd5030e0$158f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Cc: "George" Subject: Re: Minn Kota - Newman Trolling Motor etc. Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 09:31:20 -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: <"jBLil2.0.bQ1.J5d1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22572 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I don't see why anyone needs a Trolling Motor to do battle with Trolls. An Old Goat like Frank Stenger has kept them out of Ashtabula County, Ohio for years. :-) Cherry trees Frank, 17 acres of cherry trees will be worth a Fortune in about thirty years. Besides they are for the birds and good for the environment, too. The Walmart "Superstore" will soon have to expand, because I'm getting to the point that I can find what I'm looking for. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 09:00:44 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA12647; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 08:55:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 08:55:42 -0700 Comments: ( Received on ftpbox.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com ) Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com Message-ID: <3606772E.C067E481 css.mot.com> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 10:56:30 -0500 From: John Steck Organization: Motorola PCS - Rapid Tooling Applications X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Discussion Group - Vortex Subject: Re: Whirlpower Introduction References: <199809210133.SAA26258 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"36b4R3.0.T53.zRd1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22573 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: David Dennard wrote: > > > But I hope there will be some here that are interested in helping > > > me find out if Whirlpower works There are many efforts here that run parallel to your work. I look forward to learning more of your theories and experiments, but it may take me a while before I am able to discuss it fairly. If there is a specific starting point you feel would be best, I am open to suggestion. BTW, welcome aboard. 8^) -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John E. Steck Senior Mechanical Engineer Rapid Tooling Applications Motorola, Libertyville, IL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces, It is not God who kills the children. Not Fate that butchers them or Destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It's us. Only us." - Rorschach From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 09:03:26 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA13916; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 09:00:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 09:00:11 -0700 Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 09:01:17 -0700 Message-Id: <199809211601.JAA02967 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: Bouyancy Question Resent-Message-ID: <"shMNi.0.FP3.AWd1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22574 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Hi Vorts, > >If you had a barrel filled with water with a bottle of compressed gas >attached to it and allow it to sink in a very deep tank, say 1km. >Then when it reaches the bottom the gas is released into the barrel and >the barrel heads towards the surface. >Will the energy released while it heads for the surface be more than >enough to recharge the compressed cylinder? > NO. Energy is lost to viscosity, which warms the water as the thing falls and then rises again. That heat energy is not recovered. >You could use a lifting bag which will increase in size as it gets >nearer the surface. NO. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 09:24:07 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA21503; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 09:20:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 09:20:47 -0700 Message-Id: <199809211621.LAA23827 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 11:20:38 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: Minn Kota and Newman Resent-Message-ID: <"jyemu3.0.rF5.Upd1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22576 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >At 10:07 AM 9/20/98 -0500, you wrote: >>At 12:32 AM 9/20/98 -0700, Bob Horst wrote: >> >> >>This sounds great! Presumably a commercialized version of Newman's motor >>would not need his personal attention to operate properly. We could just >>follow the manutacturer's operating instructions. If MinnKota DID steal >>Newman's technology then surely their motors must exhibit some measurable >>degree of the performance he claims. >> >> > >Scott, have you forgotten Barry Merriman's advice of a year or so ago? >Suppose you go through with this and obtain and test the motor and find >nothing abnormal. Then what? Well, who ever said that it was an official >Newman motor in the first place? ***{According to Evan, Newman himself said so, in the latest edition of his book. Since I have one of the older editions, I can't personally confirm that, but I have no reason to believe that Evan would lie about it. --Mitchell Jones}*** You are right back where you were then. In >fact, I distinctly remember you agreeing with Barry at the time and posting >a message to Evan requesting to test an official working Newman motor at >the time. What ever did become of that request? > >--Lynn From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 09:24:34 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA21304; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 09:20:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 09:20:23 -0700 Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 12:14:04 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Minn Kota and Newman In-Reply-To: <3604AF73.33F26136 gte.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"njFe32.0.nC5.6pd1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22575 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Vo., I was able to get the manual for the MK motor used in the trolling motor. The key point which MAY be considered part of |Newman's work is the length of the winding on the armature VS the width... to put it another way: This is a long ... skinny armature VS a shorter fat[er] ... It is in no way claimed or implied the motor is OU, but simply that it runs longer before charge. Basically this seems due to both cooling and power management. In other respects, the motor is conventional. The motor alone can be had from MK for about 105 dollars. Go to K mart, and order the replacement part... OR: K Mart often will have it go on sale form the 119.00 to 69.00 range, from time to time. JHS On Sun, 20 Sep 1998, Bob Horst wrote: > Evan Soule wrote: . > > > In the latest Edition of his book, Joe has reported the theft of his > > technology by MinnKota Corp. who have made a fortune employing his designs > > in their trolling motors. He has stated that Dr. Roger Hastings (who has > > been a consultant to MinnKota) has been the conduit of information to > > MinnKota. > > > > What I have found curious is that MinnKota would 1) suddenly began > > advertising their product as "COOL POWER" (a motor that runs cool) and 2) > > simultaneously change the nomenclature of their trolling motors from > > "horsepower" to "thrust" --- at the same time that Joe has stated they > > began using his technology in their products > > Well, I looked up Minn Kota on the web, and found this site: > > http://www.northlandmarine.com/MinnMaxxumBowMnt.htm#Anchor##MaxxumFootControl > > They do advertise "cool power" and claim that the "Maximizer" delivers five > times more power on a single battery charge. The cheapest one advertised is > $454. If they really stole Newmans ideas and really get 5x more power than a > normal motor, I assume that this motor should be OU (given that a standard > motor would be more than 20% efficient). > > How about this proposal: If you are certain this motor is OU, all of Vortex > together scrapes up the $454 to buy one of these motors and has Scott test it. > We make a wager -- if the motor is not OU, you agree not to post anything more > about Newman on Vortex. If it is OU, you and everyone connected with this > technology can write your own ticket to capitalize on the technology and make > tons of money. Willing to take the bet? > > Newman should not be complaing about this company. Surely he does not expect > to manufacture every electric motor used in the whole world. Giving up the > trolling motor market to validate the concept does not sound like a bad deal to > me. There should many billions of dollars left for him in selling into all > other markets for electric motors. > > -- Bob Horst > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 09:24:49 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA21575; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 09:20:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 09:20:51 -0700 Message-Id: <199809211621.LAA23830 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 11:20:39 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: Minn Kota and Newman Resent-Message-ID: <"BB25F.0.pG5.Ypd1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22577 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >>Mitchell Jones wrote in reply to my post: >> >>> >We make a wager -- if the motor is not OU, you agree not to post >>>anything more >>> >about Newman on Vortex. >>> >>> ***{This is absurd. Evan has the right to decide what he will and will not >>> post. The question here is whether Newman's motor works. Period. If he, >>> Newman, will not supply a motor of his own for testing, then it is >>> reasonable to use the MinnKota motor as a substitute, since he claims it is >>> based on his design. But we will need Evan, who is apparently the only >>> conduit we have to Newman, to provide feedback during the testing process, >>> to ensure that it is conducted properly. Remember: it has been claimed by >>> Newman himself that there are difficulties associated with testing his >>> motors. He claimed, for example, that NIST screwed up their own testing by >>> grounding the motor. Since, presumably, we want to do a test that will >>> actually supply useful information, we need as much feedback from the >>> Newman camp as we can get. So let's drop these insulting suggestions that >>> Evan place duct tape across his mouth if the motor flunks Scott's test, and >>> start focusing on the question of how to determine whether the motor works. >>> --Mitchell Jones}*** >>> >> >>OK, I apologize for the comment on stopping posts about Newman. As long >>as other >>Vorts respond to Evan's posts, I guess they are still interested. (That >>part of >>the bet was mostly just supposed to be a humorous comment, but obviously >>some took >>it seriously.) >> >>On the other hand, I do not see why Evan or anyone else connected with >>Newman needs >>to help with the tests. Someone buying a trolling motor is not going to use >>it >>under any special laboratory conditions. They should expect to see the 5X >>performance if the advertising is not fraudulent. As for the question of >>grounding, it is hard to get a better ground than a metal motor submerged in a >>lake. Presumably the motor works under those conditions. There is not >>much to go >>wrong in this type of simple test -- measure power in and torque. But to >>be safe, >>Scott could run two sets of tests with the motor grounded and floating. >> >>Instead of suggesting a wager, I should have posed this simple question to >>Evan: >>Do you think the Minn Kota motor is OU or not? If not, how is it any >>better than >>the impressive new motors designed for electric cars that are near 100% >>efficiency? If it is OU, why has no one else reported that asounding fact? >> >>-- Bob Horst > >Dear Bob, > >Thanks for your comments. > >Yep. Since Joe is not directly connected to internet, I am naturally placed >in the position of 'intermediary' --- to one degree or another. Well, I'm >walking a "fine line" here because there are LEGAL actions now under way >regarding the MinnKota situation. Yes, at the very least, I do believe >that specific MinnKota motor models manufactured at certain times are OU. >MinnKota has been well aware of Joe's position regarding their usage of his >technology vis-a-vis Roger Hastings. The principal MinnKota dealer in >Mobile told Joseph Newman that up to the time of Joe's notification to >MinnKota about their utilization of his technology without his permission, >he (the dealer) was awaiting delivery (within 1-2 weeks) of a more advanced >& larger model (based upon the 46-lb thrust model's specs) which MinnKota >had announced. Then, the dealer reported that everything -- all new >information from MinnKota -- _stopped_. No more updates. No more new >brochures. And the dealer then received word that the anticipated delivery >would be delayed for some time. ***{I cannot believe this: the goose squats to lay the golden egg, and Joe blasts it with a shotgun! There is no reason to move on Minn Kota now. Let them prove your technology for you, if it can be proven. Then, when the world believes in the Newman motor and is clamoring for it, your patent will sail through, and the royalties will be huge. If you stop them now with legal threats and bad publicity (accusations of fraud), you will be right back where you started--which is nowhere. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >It is Joe's position that the individuals associated with MinnKota >(especially those in decision-making positions who are connected with the >oil industry) who responsible for utilizing his technology, have sought to >employ it in an market that essentially does _not_ compete with the >internal combustion technology: the trolling market. At the same time, the >improvements to the MinnKota trolling motor (given to MinnKota by Hastings >from Joseph Newman) have been intended to capture a large share of this >particular market. ***{I suggest that one of you guys take the time to read up on the history of the original laser patent. You will find that, because the granting of the patent was delayed for many years, the market for lasers had time to become very large before the patent was granted, and rendered the patent itself extraordinarily valuable. The point is that royalties collected from an immense and already developed market are much greater than royalties collected from a market that is just coming into existence. (And, of course, royalties collected from a market which you destroy via legal action will be zero.) --Mitchell Jones}*** > >I'll state it now (and will, no doubt, state it again): due to the above >legal action, if you wish the technical specifics of the aspects of Joe's >technology which have been utilized by MinnKota (as disclosed to Hastings), >you will need to contact Joe directly at: (602) 977-2813. > >Best regards, > >Evan Soule' From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 09:45:18 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA00745; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 09:41:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 09:41:21 -0700 Message-ID: <002f01bde57e$c8e36e30$255b2bcf ar91037.argis.com> From: "Craig Haynie" To: Subject: Re: Minn Kota and Newman Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 11:41:35 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id JAA00667 Resent-Message-ID: <"FHCnL2.0.JB.l6e1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22578 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Monday, September 21, 1998 11:25 AM Subject: Re: Minn Kota and Newman [...] >> They do advertise "cool power" and claim that the "Maximizer" delivers five >> times more power on a single battery charge. The cheapest one advertised is >> $454. If they really stole Newmans ideas and really get 5x more power than a >> normal motor, I assume that this motor should be OU (given that a standard >> motor would be more than 20% efficient). Huh??? 5x more power is not that same as 5 times more energy. Is there a claim made that the machine will not require a quicker recharge? Craig Haynie (Houston) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 09:47:58 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA01656; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 09:44:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 09:44:20 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 11:54:23 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Newman's Offer Resent-Message-ID: <"GgGgo.0.nP.a9e1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22580 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Evan Soule' wrote: >> Joe's response and offer to you, John: >> >> Please submit to him in writing (as a Confirmed Purchasing Order from >> Motorola) orders for his Motor/Generator units. You and he can discuss the >> terms of pricing/quantity/operating specs/delivery time. Joe has stated >> that a suitable Confirmed Order (from Motorola) will allow him to obtain >> the financing he needs to launch commercial production. > >Hey that's great Evan, but I can see why Joe insists that people call him >direct. If you re-read my offer you will understand how you butchered it. Dear John, Thanks for your comments. Thanks also for your opinion that I "butchered it." Of course, my opinion is that yours is incorrect. Your original offer was: "Tell you what, manufacture a small "self-perpetuating" 500W generator unit and give me a 10% commission on each one I sell and I will make you richer than any royalties contact ever could. Guranteed. No strings attached." The key word for Joseph Newman is "manufacture." Without the ability to manufacture the technology, your offer to "sell" the technology is meaningless. Joseph Newman responded to your "offer" with an offer that is realistic for him in term of launching such manufacture. Whether it is realistic for YOU is obviously your concern and is something which, presumably, only you can answer. > >The offer wasn't made by me on behalf of Motorola. I do not have the contract >authority to purchase unproven technology. I don't care how many people you >line up to testify, I would get laughed out of the room without a working >sample. Place an order no less! HA! For what????? What would you have >me put >in the description column on the purchase order that wouldn't be submitted as >evidence in lawsuit for breach of contract? > >It Joe wants Motorola's name on it, Joe will have to present his technology to >us the same way everyone else is required to; under the terms of a >notarized two >way non-disclosure agreement, a complete, working unit that operates exactly as >claimed, with proof of ownership, supplied to us, at the inventor's >expense, for >whatever testing we deem neccessary, for whatever time period we feel >appropriate. You and I both know that will never happen. Based on his actions >and statements I think Joe is too paranoid and neurotic to ever permit >such good >faith agreement (sleeping on a cot at Little's lab, indeed!). > >.....and I would let Joe know that unless he wants a very expensive slap on the >hand, you both better think twice before attaching Motorola's good name to any >of his stuff before the above conditions are satisfied. My inquiry does not >constitute or imply endorsement by Motorola Inc. of fitness for a particular or >indirect purpose or application. There is an entire legal department just down >the hall waiting for even rumors of bonehead moves like that. That IS a >threat. Quite honestly I, like most people, don't react well to "threats" -- in fact, if one were so inclined, one could tell you where to place your "threat." But I will endeavor to remain polite with you despite your antagonistic attitude. I will repeat again, as I stated _prior_ to your "offer": if you/anyone would like to directly discuss the terms of an given "offer" then I would recommend that you contact Joseph Newman directly. And, in your particular case, Mr. Steck, were you to endeavor to initiate an antagonistic attitude of discussion with Joseph Newman, then I would suggest that you save yourself the initiated effort. I believe that Joe would be a tad less diplomatic than myself with your attitude. > >> And no, I am not an "agent" of Joseph Newman. I believe in his work and I >> have assisted him for over 15 years. > >HA HA HA HA HA HA ROF > >That's a good one. Need I remind you your address is : > josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) It is both a "good one" and a "real one". As I stated before I am not an "agent" for Joseph Newman. The nomenclature of my email address was my choice. If you choose to believe that it makes me an "agent" for Joseph Newman, you are quite welcome to believe anything that you wish. I certainly would not want to be the one to disabuse you of your notion. > >If you don't know the legal ramifications of that you are a complete fool. If >Joe knows about it, and still permits it, he is even a bigger one. > >I don't know who you think you are fooling. No, John, I am not "fooling" anyone. You are doing a fine job of "fooling" yourself. You've present yourself as an agent >of JN here since day one. Let's see..... what was that title that used to >be on >your signature again.... Director of Information? Just because you've stopped >putting it there does not mean it never was there. Do I need to pull the >archives? Misrepresentation and the use of another's name to claim or >perpetuate legitimacy is intent to commit fraud. If this is news to you, you >may want to talk to a lawyer. I highly suggest change your verbage, get a >different email address, or find a new batch of suckers to twist facts with. >Working for free is not a loophole, it's just stupid. I certainly have used the title "Director of Information" since it is both explict and accurate: I direct information. And, quite honestly and sincerely, I truly could care less what your opinion of me is. Because I hold you in such a low regard, I would be more concerned if you had a _positive_ opinion of me. > >My offer is withdrawn. I don't want to be associated with you or Joe in any >manner. I don't think there exists a capacity to do business in good faith and >subsequently it is my opinion that nothing good will ever come of any >relationship no matter how far removed. New technology is hard enough to sell >even when the inventor is agreeable and forthright. You guys are just plain >shooting yourselves in the foot. Once again, you are entitled to your opinion. And, of course, my opinion is that your's is worthless. Your offer was "meaningless" (that's my opinion, BTW) with which you are free to disagree. And, as a result of your antagonism -- which you even expressed in your _original_ email containing your so-called "offer" --- I personally would suggest to Joe that it would be an insult to him to have any association with you. > >Since you admittably have no bearing on Joe or his alleged technology this will >be the last email I will waste on you. I have no use for PR people. If Joe >wants to come clean and do business, he can contact me, but the mountain will >not come to Mohamad. (don't worry, I wont be holding my breath) > >Best wishes and good luck with your endeavors. > > >-- > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > John E. Steck > Senior Mechanical Engineer > Rapid Tooling Applications > Motorola, Libertyville, IL > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Thanks again for your comments and input. I am also pleased that this will be the last "email I(you) will waste on you(me)" because this means that I will not have to waste my time corresponding with you. I have no use for intellectually dishonest people, and I am very sorry if anything I have said here would discourage you from holding your breath .... indefinitely. Very best regards and wishing you happiness at Motorola. Evan Soule' From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 09:48:08 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA01631; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 09:44:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 09:44:17 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 11:54:20 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Minn Kota Resent-Message-ID: <"IcziB2.0.KP.X9e1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22579 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Evan, > >Do you suppose that you could persuade Ralph (see below) to contact Scott >Little, or preferably post to Vortex, and provide details? I'll be happy to discuss it with Ralph -- but, obviously, Ralph will make his own decision. Vortex is not a >gathering of believers of any particular set of claims. It consists of >people critically-minded and usually technically aware who are willing to >consider what is ordinarily considered to be foolishness. There have been >many claims that seem to amount to nothing with many devices. Newman has >been going on for many years about his machines. It is hard to believe >that anyone with the sort of technology we so earnestly seek could fail so >completely for so long to communicate. You may honestly believe that Joe has failed to communicate with you and/or others. This may also be true due to problems in either transmission, reception, or both. I will say that there are MANY people with whom Joe has communicated (via his published work) across the planet. And I am in daily communication with such people: students, professors, researchers, technicians, engineers, etc. I have no idea nor control over what they will or will not do with the information. I can say (based on the feedback I am receiving) that such people are beginning to take a fresh look at the "fundamentals" of electromagnetism. I would love to have this "energy revolution" happen within Joe's lifetime -- or my lifetime. I believe that we both agree that while we hope to see this happen, we also understanding the possibility that it may not. A physicist once stated that, "In some cases, the bigger and more important an innovation is, the longer the possibility of its acceptance CAN be." The Newtonian Intellectual Revolution took many years to "take hold" --- and even longer before the tangible results of this Revolution began to change the lives of millions of people on this planet. A trivial innovation can RISE in acceptance/application VERY rapidly --- and fall just as rapidly. An example would be the "hula-hoop." I have detected the beginnings of a real revolution in our understanding of electromagnetism --- and I believe the results will ultimately be very beneficial to all of humanity. > >It is obvious to you that people are interested in the claims Newman has >made. So, you've got our attention, will you cooperate with Earthtech, or >is this just another dog-and-pony show? > >I think Earthtech has shown excellent capability as experimentalists, but >performing experiments with many uncertainties, they admit their negative >results could be false. That is why Joe Newman should be present. >Perhaps, in a genuine effort to resolve this mess, the testing should be >*fully* videotaped, including any disagreements or disputes. If I only see >Scott Little concluding underunity and Joe Newman vehemently claiming to >having been cheated again, it means nothing but a non-surprising waste of >time and money. Whatever Earthtech and Joseph Newman do or do not arrange will obviously be between themselves. > >I have heard that Dr. Hastings reversed his opinion on the technology. Is >this true? What about other previous expert supporters? I consider it >unlikely, but possible that he (they) recognized valuable principles for >other engineering projects, like Minn Kota, in which case, thorough >independent testing of it should quickly settle the dispute. > >Ed Wall >NERL I have not heard that Roger Hastings reversed his opinion on the technology. Ditto for the other supporters. In fact, Dr. Hastings' _actions_ over the past years attest to his belief in the technology. Best regards, Evan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 09:56:54 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA06278; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 09:51:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 09:51:20 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 12:01:20 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Minn Kota and Newman Resent-Message-ID: <"9R0U-3.0.zX1.7Ge1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22581 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >>At 10:07 AM 9/20/98 -0500, you wrote: >>>At 12:32 AM 9/20/98 -0700, Bob Horst wrote: >>> >>> >>>This sounds great! Presumably a commercialized version of Newman's motor >>>would not need his personal attention to operate properly. We could just >>>follow the manutacturer's operating instructions. If MinnKota DID steal >>>Newman's technology then surely their motors must exhibit some measurable >>>degree of the performance he claims. >>> >>> >> >>Scott, have you forgotten Barry Merriman's advice of a year or so ago? >>Suppose you go through with this and obtain and test the motor and find >>nothing abnormal. Then what? Well, who ever said that it was an official >>Newman motor in the first place? > >***{According to Evan, Newman himself said so, in the latest edition of his >book. Since I have one of the older editions, I can't personally confirm >that, but I have no reason to believe that Evan would lie about it. >--Mitchell Jones}*** > What Mitchell says is correct. And Joe was specifically referring to the 46-lb "thrust" Model. Evan Soule' From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 10:45:13 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA23691; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 10:42:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 10:42:15 -0700 Message-Id: <199809211742.MAA25772 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 12:42:09 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: Newmans Offer Resent-Message-ID: <"R_Nn23.0.3o5.r_e1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22583 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Evan Soule wrote: >> Joe's response and offer to you, John: >> >> Please submit to him in writing (as a Confirmed Purchasing Order from >> Motorola) orders for his Motor/Generator units. You and he can discuss the >> terms of pricing/quantity/operating specs/delivery time. Joe has stated >> that a suitable Confirmed Order (from Motorola) will allow him to obtain >> the financing he needs to launch commercial production. > >Hey that's great Evan, but I can see why Joe insists that people call him >direct. If you re-read my offer you will understand how you butchered it. > >The offer wasn't made by me on behalf of Motorola. I do not have the contract >authority to purchase unproven technology. I don't care how many people you >line up to testify, I would get laughed out of the room without a working >sample. Place an order no less! HA! For what????? What would you have me >put >in the description column on the purchase order that wouldn't be submitted as >evidence in lawsuit for breach of contract? > >It Joe wants Motorola's name on it, Joe will have to present his technology to >us the same way everyone else is required to; under the terms of a notarized >two >way non-disclosure agreement, a complete, working unit that operates exactly as >claimed, with proof of ownership, supplied to us, at the inventor's expense, >for >whatever testing we deem neccessary, for whatever time period we feel >appropriate. You and I both know that will never happen. Based on his actions >and statements I think Joe is too paranoid and neurotic to ever permit such >good >faith agreement (sleeping on a cot at Little's lab, indeed!). > >.....and I would let Joe know that unless he wants a very expensive slap on the >hand, you both better think twice before attaching Motorola's good name to any >of his stuff before the above conditions are satisfied. My inquiry does not >constitute or imply endorsement by Motorola Inc. of fitness for a particular or >indirect purpose or application. There is an entire legal department just down >the hall waiting for even rumors of bonehead moves like that. That IS a >threat. > >> And no, I am not an "agent" of Joseph Newman. I believe in his work and I >> have assisted him for over 15 years. > >HA HA HA HA HA HA ROF > >That's a good one. Need I remind you your address is : > josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) > >If you don't know the legal ramifications of that you are a complete fool. If >Joe knows about it, and still permits it, he is even a bigger one. > >I don't know who you think you are fooling. You've present yourself as an >agent >of JN here since day one. Let's see..... what was that title that used to be >on >your signature again.... Director of Information? Just because you've stopped >putting it there does not mean it never was there. Do I need to pull the >archives? Misrepresentation and the use of another's name to claim or >perpetuate legitimacy is intent to commit fraud. If this is news to you, you >may want to talk to a lawyer. I highly suggest change your verbage, get a >different email address, or find a new batch of suckers to twist facts with. >Working for free is not a loophole, it's just stupid. > >My offer is withdrawn. I don't want to be associated with you or Joe in any >manner. I don't think there exists a capacity to do business in good faith and >subsequently it is my opinion that nothing good will ever come of any >relationship no matter how far removed. New technology is hard enough to sell >even when the inventor is agreeable and forthright. You guys are just plain >shooting yourselves in the foot. ***{John, in a hundred years nobody will care whether you spoke for Motorola, or whether Evan spoke for Newman, or whether you were able to argue Evan into a corner based on his use of Newman's internet address, or about whether you wanted to be associated with Evan or with Newman. In a hundred years, if Newman's motor works, every person in this group who focused on personalities, or on legalities, or on anything other than the science, is going to be regarded as a fool. Given that fact, don't you think it is time to de-escalate the rhetoric and focus on determining whether the motor works? --Mitchell Jones}*** > >Since you admittably have no bearing on Joe or his alleged technology this will >be the last email I will waste on you. I have no use for PR people. If Joe >wants to come clean and do business, he can contact me, but the mountain will >not come to Mohamad. (don't worry, I wont be holding my breath) > >Best wishes and good luck with your endeavors. > > >-- > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > John E. Steck > Senior Mechanical Engineer > Rapid Tooling Applications > Motorola, Libertyville, IL > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > "This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces, > It is not God who kills the children. Not Fate that butchers them or > Destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It's us. Only us." - Rorschach > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 10:47:25 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA23653; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 10:42:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 10:42:10 -0700 Message-Id: <199809211742.MAA25769 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 12:42:07 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: Minn Kota Resent-Message-ID: <"vz6jv3.0.Qn5.n_e1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22582 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Evan, > >Do you suppose that you could persuade Ralph (see below) to contact Scott >Little, or preferably post to Vortex, and provide details? Vortex is not a >gathering of believers of any particular set of claims. It consists of >people critically-minded and usually technically aware who are willing to >consider what is ordinarily considered to be foolishness. There have been >many claims that seem to amount to nothing with many devices. Newman has >been going on for many years about his machines. It is hard to believe >that anyone with the sort of technology we so earnestly seek could fail so >completely for so long to communicate. ***{Why is it hard to believe? Creative people are weird. That is simply a fact. Isaac Newton, for example, was certifiable. He left manuscripts detailing a revolutionary system of mathematics (the calculus) moldering in a trunk for 20 years. He was paranoid, wildly idiosyncratic, and extremely volatile. Almost nobody could get along with him. Fortunately, he lived in an age when monied and influential people were willing to overlook his idiosyncrasies and give him the help he needed in the social realm, so that the world could benefit from his genius. While I do not intend to compare Newman to Newton in terms of intellect, I think we need to recognize the possibility that a person might appear to be nutty as a fruitcake in the social realm, that he might antagonize virtually everyone whom he encounters, and yet might still make a valuable contribution if handled gently. Thus I think the personal antagonisms need to be put aside, and the focus needs to shift to the process of verifying whether the motor works. When I say that, there is no implication that Newman is or is not at fault for antagonizing people, driving them crazy with irrational demands, making offers and then withdrawing them, failing to plan ahead, behaving as if everyone is out to get him, etc. My entire point is that we need to set such considerations aside and proceed in a rational manner toward the goal of finding out whether his motor works. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >It is obvious to you that people are interested in the claims Newman has >made. So, you've got our attention, will you cooperate with Earthtech, or >is this just another dog-and-pony show? > >I think Earthtech has shown excellent capability as experimentalists, but >performing experiments with many uncertainties, they admit their negative >results could be false. That is why Joe Newman should be present. >Perhaps, in a genuine effort to resolve this mess, the testing should be >*fully* videotaped, including any disagreements or disputes. If I only see >Scott Little concluding underunity and Joe Newman vehemently claiming to >have been cheated again, it means nothing but a non-surprising waste of >time and money. > >I have heard that Dr. Hastings reversed his opinion on the technology. Is >this true? What about other previous expert supporters? I consider it >unlikely, but possible that he (they) recognized valuable principles for >other engineering projects, like Minn Kota, in which case, thorough >independent testing of it should quickly settle the dispute. > >Ed Wall >NERL > >---------- >> From: Evan Soule >> To: vortex-l eskimo.com >> Subject: Re: Minn Kota >> Date: Monday, September 21, 1998 2:36 AM >> >> J>It is incorrect to only say "Joe teaches low current and HIGH voltage." >> >> Correct. One of the best examples of this is the 900 pound motor >> with the 60 pound rotor which Joe built some years ago. It ran on 12 >> volts. The university of Mississippi (IIRC) tested it and found it well >> over unity. >> >> That was the motor which was shown on TV by Garland Robinette. That >> particular motor ran for several hours on really "dead" AA cells. I was >> there, and I furnished the batteries. I put them (new) in a flashlight >> and left the flashlight turned on for a week and a half - they were >> DEAD! >> >> Ralph >> >> From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 11:21:16 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA04383; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 11:17:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 11:17:18 -0700 Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 14:15:33 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Final thoughts on Newman Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809211417_MC2-5A28-CA5D compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"Kjk2P.0.I41.jWf1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22584 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex This has been an interesting exchange. We have learned a great deal about the thought processes of o-u inventors. I'd like to wrap up some loose ends to avoid misunderstandings. Scott Little's plan for the MinnKota motor is excellent. John Steck is justifiably upset. He wrote: .....and I would let Joe know that unless he wants a very expensive slap on the hand, you both better think twice before attaching Motorola's good name to any of his stuff . . . My inquiry does not constitute or imply endorsement by Motorola Inc. of fitness for a particular or indirect purpose or application. . . . That IS a threat. With Newman and Soule this is a threat. But in a discussion with an ordinary businessman, a bland statement about "constitute or imply endorsement . . . " is no threat. It is boilerplate policy, taken for granted. I said that to my knowledge Newman has never committed fraud. I mean in the legal sense: "fraud, in law, the deliberate misrepresentation of fact for the purpose of depriving someone of a valuable possession." (Britannica) Going around fooling people with a fake motor is not fraud unless you take their money. The admission to a demonstration is probably not fraud because the supermarket tabloid papers, carnival sideshows, and professional magicians have exhibited similar humbug from time immemorial. I am no lawyer, but I think the laws usually overlooks such ancient customs. John Steck offers Soule excellent advice: Need I remind you your address is: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) You've present yourself as an agent of JN here since day one . . . Director of Information? Misrepresentation and the use of another's name to claim or perpetuate legitimacy is intent to commit fraud. If this is news to you, you may want to talk to a lawyer. Definitely talk to a lawyer! Legal rules for e-mail addresses and web domains are still in flux. Using another person's name in your e-mail address and claiming you are his agent is risky behavior. People involved in a controversial field like o-u energy should be careful not to misrepresent themselves. Someone named Ralph wrote: "That particular motor ran for several hours on really 'dead' AA cells. I was there, and I furnished the batteries. I put them (new) in a flashlight and left the flashlight turned on for a week and a half - they were DEAD!" This is fishy. It is a shame Ralph did not try an AA cell with electrical tape covering the positive terminal. I expect the machine would have worked fine, which would prove the batteries have nothing to do with it. I suspect a hidden power supply, because DEAD AA batteries hold about as much potential energy as 5 cm dowels. Ralph sounds like a gullible fellow . . . could he be another pseudonym for Soule? Evan Soule wrote: From your comments above it is truly apparent that you do not understand the technology and the Theory of the Gyroscopic Massergy which Joe describes in his book. Yes, that is what I said. "[Newman & Soule] talk a lot about an advanced scientific theory which I do not understand and I cannot judge." Technology which lets you extract energy from dead AA batteries will be forever beyond my understanding. - Jed (or maybe Ralph?) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 12:20:27 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA21737; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 12:15:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 12:15:39 -0700 From: Tstolper aol.com Message-ID: <149c04a.3606a4fd aol.com> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 15:11:57 EDT To: vortex-L eskimo.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Claytor's Tritium Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 84 Resent-Message-ID: <"_7N2V.0.uI5.QNg1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22585 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In his post of Thu, 17 Sep 1998 17:33:19 -0500; Message-ID: <36018E2F.5682 earthlink.net>, Rich Murray asked: "Has Claytor's deuterium gas discharge production of tritium been replicated? Can he reproduce his own results?" Claytor's exceptional ability to keep reproducing his tritium results is one reason that LANL has kept on funding his tritium work over the years. Rich: Claytor is in your part of the world. Have you visited him? Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 12:22:07 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA23558; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 12:19:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 12:19:16 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 14:29:14 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Final thoughts on Newman Resent-Message-ID: <"SJXp-3.0.sl5.oQg1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22586 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >To: Vortex > >This has been an interesting exchange. We have learned a great deal about the >thought processes of o-u inventors. I'd like to wrap up some loose ends to >avoid misunderstandings. > snip-- > >Someone named Ralph wrote: "That particular motor ran for several hours on >really 'dead' AA cells. I was there, and I furnished the batteries. I put >them (new) in a flashlight and left the flashlight turned on for a week and a >half - they were DEAD!" This is fishy. It is a shame Ralph did not try an AA >cell with electrical tape covering the positive terminal. I expect the machine >would have worked fine, which would prove the batteries have nothing to do >with it. I suspect a hidden power supply, because DEAD AA batteries hold about >as much potential energy as 5 cm dowels. Ralph sounds like a gullible fellow >. . . could he be another pseudonym for Soule? Dear Jed, The negative aspect of your imagination is once again hard at work. It is unfortunate that you've not positively applied it to understanding Joseph Newman's technical process and Theory of the Gyroscopic Massergy. Ralph Hartwell is the Chief Engineer for the CBS-affiliate television station in New Orleans. He has conducted many hours of testing on Joseph Newman's prototypes and assisted Joe with the construction of his largest unit. Gullible? Hardly. > >Evan Soule' wrote: > > From your comments above it is truly apparent that you do not understand > the technology and the Theory of the Gyroscopic Massergy which Joe > describes in his book. > >Yes, that is what I said. "[Newman & Soule] talk a lot about an advanced >scientific theory which I do not understand and I cannot judge." Technology >which lets you extract energy from dead AA batteries will be forever beyond my >understanding. > >- Jed (or maybe Ralph?) In your case, I can truly appreciate your inability to understand. Best regards, Evan (or maybe Jed?) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 13:14:28 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA10732; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 13:10:57 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 13:10:57 -0700 Message-ID: <008d01bde59c$0342a4c0$158f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Subject: Small Business Technology Transfer (http://sttr.er.doe.gov/sttr/) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 14:09:13 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01BDE569.69D167E0" 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: <"cEkeD.0.Xd2.HBh1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22588 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_0006_01BDE569.69D167E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://sttr.er.doe.gov/sttr/ ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BDE569.69D167E0 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Small Business Technology Transfer.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Small Business Technology Transfer.url" [InternetShortcut] URL=http://sttr.er.doe.gov/sttr/ Modified=E0154B9C9BE5BD011A ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BDE569.69D167E0-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 13:14:54 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA10703; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 13:10:53 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 13:10:53 -0700 Message-ID: <008e01bde59c$0456d3e0$158f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Subject: Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) (http://sbir.er.doe.gov/sbir/) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 14:10:48 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000F_01BDE569.A1AC6AC0" 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: <"yaxWL3.0.6d2.CBh1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22587 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_000F_01BDE569.A1AC6AC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://sbir.er.doe.gov/sbir/ ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01BDE569.A1AC6AC0 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR).url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR).url" [InternetShortcut] URL=http://sbir.er.doe.gov/sbir/ Modified=C0537EDC9BE5BD01AB ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01BDE569.A1AC6AC0-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 13:30:38 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA19088; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 13:27:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 13:27:04 -0700 Message-Id: <199809212028.QAA25577 mercury.mv.net> From: "Ed Wall" To: Subject: Re: Minn Kota Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 15:38:05 -0400 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: <"zbmW83.0.Ag4.OQh1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22589 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Evan, > >It is hard to believe > >that anyone with the sort of technology we so earnestly seek could fail so > >completely for so long to communicate. > > You may honestly believe that Joe has failed to communicate with you and/or > others. > I meant 'communicate' in a broader sense than having a chat. I meant to communicate convincing data as must be done in order to convey the facts empirically. > I would love to have this "energy revolution" happen within Joe's lifetime > -- or my lifetime. I believe that we both agree that while we hope to see > this happen, we also understanding the possibility that it may not. A > physicist once stated that, "In some cases, the bigger and more important > an innovation is, the longer the possibility of its acceptance CAN be." > The Newtonian Intellectual Revolution took many years to "take hold" --- > and even longer before the tangible results of this Revolution began to > change the lives of millions of people on this planet. A trivial > innovation can RISE in acceptance/application VERY rapidly --- and fall > just as rapidly. An example would be the "hula-hoop." I have detected the > beginnings of a real revolution in our understanding of electromagnetism > --- and I believe the results will ultimately be very beneficial to all of > humanity. > > In fact, Dr. Hastings' > _actions_ over the past years attest to his belief in the technology. > Provided one believes that the improvement in the Minn Kota design is taken from Newman, for which you seem to offer no evidence. There is indeed a basic change of science happening, which does not bode well for those introducing the change. Borrowing from Tom Phipps' book, _Heritical Verities_, "Science is like offences. It needs must come, but woe unto that man through whom it comes...," Samuel Butler, _Life and Habit_. If Newman is correct, the evidence must be presented in the best possible way, because he can only expect complete disbelief otherwise, and even if. Ed Wall NERL From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 14:33:40 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA10254; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 14:27:49 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 14:27:49 -0700 Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 17:26:32 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: RF may revive dead batteries Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809211728_MC2-5A29-1C92 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"E7E7k2.0.5W2.KJi1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22590 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex My friend the anonymous electrochemist tells me that I did not understand the effect seen by Ray-o-vac. "Primary cells stop working when a layer forms . . . Newman's devices have so many turns of wire that he apparently generates a strong RF field that allows the remaining chemicals to produce energy." In other words, exposing dead dry cells to Newman's machine is like heating them up. You sometimes liberate a little more chemical energy. Newman mistook this for recharging. Ralph Hartwell said he put "dead" batteries in the machine. I compared them to dowels, but I should have realized that even a dead battery may have a little unreacted Cd and NiO2. But I do not understand how this process could bootstrap itself. Suppose Hartwell arrives in the morning with a set of dead batteries and installs them first thing. How could the machine start running, generate RF, and break the surface barrier? Perhaps the machine was running with another set of batteries when Hartwell arrived, and he placed the dead batteries nearby . . . But this speculation is a waste of time. It is nearly impossible to tease out the truth about an amateur experiment by reading fragmented e-mail messages. A scientist would write a paper describing each step, and he would publish it, or post it here or on a web page. He would keep a lab notebook. He would repeat the experiment many times. He would run it for a long time to be sure the batteries were really recharged. We could ask him how the batteries were handled at each step. The equipment would still be in existence. Other people would be able to try the experiment again. To separate error from truth, we must have explication, description, repetition, and independent verification. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 15:02:54 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA22555; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 14:55:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 14:55:52 -0700 Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 14:55:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809212155.OAA10301 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Whirlpower Introduction Resent-Message-ID: <"a7Iti.0.LW5.dji1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22591 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John, Thank you. You wrote; > > There are many efforts here that run parallel to your work. I look forward > to > learning more of your theories and experiments, but it may take me a while > before I am able to discuss it fairly. I hope there are some that can discuss it fairly. To do otherwise would not be very productive. If there is a specific starting point > you feel would be best, I am open to suggestion. I like to start at the begining, and state my theory. Then I announce to the list my Eureka. Since I don't have money, or lawyers, or legal help, or a company, this is just a one man operation, no money involved, yet; all I can do is announce my discovery and ask for help. This I have been doing for over a year and have made progress. All my theory is fully disclosed for for the scrutiny of others. Unlike other new energy inventors that have money or backers that dictate policy, I am just a dreamer with a dream. My dream inspired me to give Whirlpower to the world as a gift. Now that thousands of people know about it and I have a number of sites dated and witnessed to these events I pland to take it to the next level and show my work to congress and the Peaceful Energy March. Steve, you mention another site that is revealing the mystery. I can guarentee it is not mine but I will go look at it, sounds interesting. My work is already fully disclosed and has been for a year or more. John, my suggestion is to see how the other works that run parallel and compare them to my theory and look for duplicity. David Dennard From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 15:31:17 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA03076; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 15:29:31 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 15:29:31 -0700 Message-ID: <3606EF01.59A2 sunherald.infi.net> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 17:27:45 -0700 From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Reply-To: stk sunherald.infi.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freenrg-l eskimo.com CC: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Looking for Bob Lee Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"iyCtX.0.tl.ADj1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22592 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: All: Is there someone on either of these lists named Bob Lee? Is there someone on either of these lists who knows a Bob Lee? If so, E-mail me. ESPECIALLY if the "Bob Lee" you know is an experimenter! Thank you, Kyle R. Mcallister From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 15:42:35 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA08697; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 15:39:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 15:39:59 -0700 Message-ID: <013a01bde5b0$cb1381e0$158f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: , Cc: Subject: Re: Looking for Bob Lee Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 16:40:03 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" 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: <"1SVj03.0.f72.zMj1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22593 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 To: freenrg-l eskimo.com Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Monday, September 21, 1998 4:31 PM Subject: Looking for Bob Lee I once knew a Robert E. Lee, but I think he died after the Civil War. :-) FJS >All: > >Is there someone on either of these lists named Bob Lee? Is there >someone on either of these lists who knows a Bob Lee? If so, E-mail me. >ESPECIALLY if the "Bob Lee" you know is an experimenter! > >Thank you, >Kyle R. Mcallister > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 15:47:39 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA11414; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 15:45:14 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 15:45:14 -0700 Comments: ( Received on ftpbox.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com ) Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com Message-ID: <3606D730.7CD19B44 css.mot.com> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 17:46:08 -0500 From: John Steck Organization: Motorola PCS - Rapid Tooling Applications X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Discussion Group - Vortex Subject: Re: Whirlpower Introduction References: <199809212155.OAA10301 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"0R23I1.0.Ao2.vRj1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22594 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: David Dennard wrote: > I hope there are some that can discuss it fairly. To do otherwise would not be > very productive. As long as it is not all just theory, I don't think many will object. The focus here is developing experiments and/or aparatus. Your frame dragging concept sparked a few imaginations..... > Now that thousands of people know about it and I have a number of sites dated > and witnessed to these events I pland to take it to the next level and show my > work to congress and the Peaceful Energy March. Visted some of the links you listed, and... well, you are sharing company with some weird cats. Got a headache reading some of that stuff. Hopefully we can push this concept a bit closer to the main stream. ha ha ha. Please don't missunderstand, fringe it's necessarily bad. I'm out on a tree limb of my own choosing too. > John, my suggestion is to see how the other works that run parallel and compare > them to my theory and look for duplicity. Already doing that. Too many to list. I outlined an experiment I am presently working on last month: John Steck wrote: > Probably much to the disappointment of some of the better educated than I, the > foundation of my effort is based on the following theories : > > 1) aether resonance structures > 2) vortex action fluid dynamics with water > 3) aether dragging / energy field stiction > 4) entropy reversal / negative viscosity through singularity constructs > > The results of achieving a singularity construct (if such a thing can exist) are > somewhat debatable. All I envision at this time is gravity filtering through > base resonance phase shifting. My primary hope that something destructive to me > or anyone else is not inadvertently created in the process. > > The system I envision, and what I am attempting to build, is a contained "smoke > ring" type structure. I hope to generate a sustainable vortex construct through > the manipulation of the tangential velocity of water in a toroid. This vortex > construct is to be the vehicle by which to determine the validity of my idea of > energy stiction and the generation of a shaped negative viscosity singularity. > > Why am I set on tring something so radical and highly theoretical? > 1) To try and prove out Ross Tessien's postulate on frequency shifted condensed > aether resonance as the mechanism for gravity and mass. > 2) To try and prove out Schauberger's findings with regard to energy > accumulation and it's effects in normal space time . > 3) To quantify the effects of energy accumulation and attempt to observe a > reverse entropy state. > 4) To try and develop a SIMPLE system by which to take advantage of these > effects if any are realized. > > My impression is that many physical conditions can create the effect, but few > combinations are able to maintain the critical variables over a long enough time > period to fully realize or successfully replicate the effect. IMHO there have > been several experiments that have already operated in this manner, but the > critical variable generating elements are short lived (like using a spinning > superconductor for gravity shielding). What is needed is a perpetual device for > on demand, robust work extraction. Since writing that, I have refined things a bit. A lurking Vort was kind enough to forward a couple papers that helped put things into perspective. The foundations for the experiment are now more in line with quantum resonance theory (not like that is any more conclusive, ha ha ha). I'm sure you can see why I am interested in learning more of your concept. My idea and your idea are really not that different. That's all for now. Looking forward to future discussions. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John E. Steck Senior Mechanical Engineer Rapid Tooling Applications Motorola, Libertyville, IL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces, It is not God who kills the children. Not Fate that butchers them or Destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It's us. Only us." - Rorschach From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 15:48:45 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA12134; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 15:46:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 15:46:15 -0700 Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 15:46:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809212246.PAA13098 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bouyancy Question Resent-Message-ID: <"VPnbK2.0.Kz2.qSj1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22595 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To all, This question is very signifcant in Whirlpower Theory and the understanding of the force of gravity. > >If you had a barrel filled with water with a bottle of compressed gas > >attached to it and allow it to sink in a very deep tank, say 1km. > >Then when it reaches the bottom the gas is released into the barrel and > >the barrel heads towards the surface. I am not sure of the answer given but I would like to say this is an action of gravity. There is no force pulling the barrel to the surface. Gravity is pulling the more dense water beneath the barrel and pushes the barrel to the surface. One may argue it is just density, but remember without gravity there would be no density to start with. This also happens in evaporation. The H2O molecule is not pulled up to clouds by the heat of the Sun. Nor is it just a matter of density as stated above. Gravity pulls the more dense high pressure atmosphere beneath the vaporized H20 molecule and pushes the molecule to the clouds. It takes a vaporized molecule to move up but it is not the vaporization that is the driving force behind the motion but the action of gravity on that vaporized molecule. This is not the way science sees gravity from all that I can gather. Gravity is not seen as the reason for evaporation. I think science is in error about this and does not understand many things about gravity. The main thing being that gravity is the driving force behind the hurricane. Whirlpower is much like building an artificial hurricane. The wobble of the vortex (the eye wall) leads to dragging an accelerated section of the hurricane ( the torus donut) which then drives the hurricane. As long as enough water is fed into the system (much like the feedback loops do in Whirlpower) the system will maintain and grow if it can get more mater. This happens in hurricanes all the time. Eventually they get into colder waters or over land and the water supply is drastically cut and the hurricane runs out of energy, in this case mass energy. This knowledge of gravity being the reason for evaporation are notes in my work as the Pearl of Wisdom. A drop of rain, a pearl of nature, so simple, never before understood, the mystery unveiled. David Dennard From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 16:25:26 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA24174; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 16:15:57 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 16:15:57 -0700 Message-ID: <3606D165.4595 earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 17:21:25 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Blue: Storms: issues in CF theory 9.21.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"YNVa02.0.ev5.iuj1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22596 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Subject: Re: Storms: Blue: issues in CF research 9.18.98 Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 11:37:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard A Blue" To: rmforall earthlink.net > I would like to summarize the approach taken by Drs. Blue and Hansen and > then make a suggestion of how to break this impasse. > > Heat production can not be attributed to a nuclear reaction, unless a > nuclear product is found, and the quantity must be consistent with the > amount of heat. In the absence of having searched for a nuclear > product, the work done at SRI and elsewhere can not be believed to > result from anything other than error or normal chemical reactions. > Miles-Bush made a correlation study between heat and a nuclear product. > This is rejected because the heat measurement is believed to be faulty. > Without a believable heat measurement, the helium can not be attributed > to an anomalous nuclear reaction, there being various other > explanations. The Bush replication is rejected, because it has not been > reviewed and published, hence unknown to you. Claims for tritium > production, as well as all helium claims, are rejected because they do > not conform to past experience, and, again, other explanations can be > imagined. The attitude being that such nuclear reactions are so > implausible, that even an implausible explanation will do. > > Is this a fair and accurate representation of your attitudes? If so, I > suggest the Miles-Bush work holds the key. If you agree, I will > undertake a careful, heavily annotated review of the Miles-Bush studies > which we can use as a factual basis for discussion. If you do not > agree, then I’m afraid I am wasting my time. > > Regards, > Ed > I must say the Ed Storms does not do a very good job at summarizing either known facts or my stated position with respect to claims for CANR. I should think it is fairly obvious that we need to have well designed experiments intended to test specific hypotheses before we can resolve any issues. I further suggest that since the issues seem to center about evidence for nuclear reactions that the experimental protocols should involve observations that are distinctly and characteristically related to nuclear reactions. Calorimetric evidence of the type that has been at the heart of so many claims that remain in dispute clearly has not led to any significant gains in our understanding of any specified reaction process. Indeed many advocates for CANR have prefered to leave nuclear evidence (or the lack thereof) totally out of the discussion. I gather that there is generally agreement that the expected emission of neutrons, gammas, energetic charged particles, and X-rays simply is not present, at least not at intensities appropriate to power levels claimed for the calorimetric measurements. It is not the experimental evidence that Ed Storms and others seeks to challange. It is the significance of the evidence that must be addressed. I don't see that further review of the Mills-Bush experiments can serve to resolve the CANR question, unless we can agree on a few basic principles, that must govern any nuclear reaction process. As long as Ed Storms or George Milley insist on there being no known constraints governing a reaction process, it is impossible to devise a logical test for any hypothesis, particularly when they continue to refuse to state any hypothesis! Ed Storms insists that the Blue-Hanson position derives from a blind, unjustified assertion that nuclear reactions are impossible. That is not my position!! Please don't try to hang that one on me again. Now, having cleared away that bit of garbage, let me see if I can steer the discussion down a more meaningful track that possibly relates to the Miles-Bush experimental claims. As I understand it, the claim is that if and only if heavy water is employed as the electrolyte with palladium as the cathode material 4He is evolved with the gas at a rate commensurate with heat production for an assumed release of 23 Mev per helium formed. There is, however, no significant neutron or gamma radiation to accompany these reaction events. Have I stated the basic claim we are to consider correctly? Why should this claim be considered suspect in light of known nuclear properties and reaction processes? First I think we need to address the concept of CANR in a general sense. As I noted in an early message, nuclear stability is the norm, and our understanding of the physics that accounts for that stability is on solid ground. A departure from that stability requires an explanation -- not just some empty assertions. There are some standard text-book bits of information about atomic structure and the atomic nucleus to be kept in mind. The nucleus and nuclear reactions involve a significant shift in scale of time and space relative to atomic structure and atomic spacing. The energy scales are also markedly different. Quantum physics makes these differences manifest in a variety of ways that should not, indeed cannot, be overlooked. For example, the thermodynamics of atomic systems at 300 K does not involve nuclear degrees of freedom because, as we say, those degrees of freedom are "frozen." I don't take seriously anyones assertions that somehow those degrees of freedom magically come into play, because they mixed up just the right chemical soup. Evidence for something like that occurring has to involve more than just an unexplained imbalance of a calorimeter. In the time frame of the initial Pons and Fleischmann claims, the discussion centered on simple deterium fusion ( d + d ), and the notion that deuterium separation distances were somehow being reduced sufficiently to account for a vast increase in the expected fusion rate. Of course, that approach to CANR floundered to two counts: First it was pointed out that the arguments for a reduction in d + d separations were largely faulty, and, more importantly, fusion of this type would still produce the usual reaction products, the products that we all agree are not observed. One hypothesis for CANR had been proposed and tested. It failed! End of discussion, one might think, but no. To keep the notion of CANR alive, it became neccessary to float other reaction hypotheses, presumably to be tested against a growing body of experimental evidence. That is what should have happened, but it did not. Either no reaction hypothesis is stated in a form subject to further experimental testing, or the practitioners of the occult CANRy arts have chosen not to make and report the measurements that could test an hypothesis. In that climate it is virtually impossible to proceed rationally. Those who, in good faith, attempt to replicate most of the claimed successes are told that they simply aren't good enough to succeed in this difficult field. Arcane reasons are invented to account for failures to replicate a wide assorment of results. So what do I think we know about helium as a product of a nuclear reaction induced by the electrolysis of heavy water? I think we know that nuclear reactions cannot be mediated over distances comparable to atomic spaces by virtual neutron emission, and still retain the claimed specificity of outcome. In otherwords, if neutrons do somehow escape the normal bounds by whatever means, there is nothing to make them home in on just one specific target. Talk of virtual neutron transfer (or whatever) is the worst sort of bull shit! It does not account for the claimed observations. Ultimately I think we need to recognize that the required departures from expected behavior must (if the claims are correct) involve significant perturbations of nuclear wave functions. If the influence of these perturbations is so profound as to account for CANR of extraordinary proportions, it is reasonable, I would assume, that there be other signs that this is occurring. As a general principle, I think it is a good idea to seek a variety of confirming evidence, before accepting revolutionary results. So far, I know of nothing like that. Time after time, the evidence, such it is, remains that we are dealing with very ordinary systems behaving in very ordinary ways. As I noted, CANR is a well established field of research. We do actually know something about the interactions between nuclei and their surrounding environments. We know how large the perturbations of nuclear wavefunctions generally may be. We know the origins of the perturbing potentials, and we know the effects they produce. I must say there has been a rather profound silence from the advocates for this new CANR with respect to just how things have changed. I suspect they have not even thought about this. Absent some input from Ed Storms on this question, I must say that the nuclei in the d Pd lattice remain, for all intents and purposes, very much as they have always been. These metal hydride lattices have been around for a very long time, and it is clear that CANR is not the normal result. Should two deuterons fuse, however, we should still expect a dramatic change of the nuclear state -- initially something we might call excited 4He being formed. I do not assert that is an impossibility. Indeed we know that cold fusion does occur. It is what must result from said fusion that is, however, a subject for debate. I have yet to hear anyone make a coherent case for an outcome consistent with the claims. In that sense, there really has been no discussion, certainly not by Ed Storms. He just seeks to trivialize any objection to CANR claims deriving from known nuclear physics. Dick Blue From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 16:38:36 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA30503; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 16:32:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 16:32:00 -0700 From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Molar gas constant Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 23:33:05 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3606e1b0.498504392 mail-hub> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"qiFZK3.0.TS7.l7k1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22597 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi, On searching for a value for this constant, I get basically two different values, depending on source. One is about 8 joule/mol*K, the other is 1000 times as large. Has the definition of the constant changed at some point? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 16:55:09 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA04310; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 16:49:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 16:49:24 -0700 Message-ID: <19980921235008.14932.qmail hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.48.94.42] From: "Peter Aldo" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Joe and Evan ....Hee Hee Hee Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 16:50:04 PDT Resent-Message-ID: <"uBMIu1.0.G31.4Ok1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22599 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Frederick, I'm doing good, Thanks. I was a little worked up about the Newman isue the day I wrote that. I saw him talk at the New Energy Symposium in Denver. I must constrain myself now before I make any more rude comments. Best to you, Pete >>Hey Pete, how you doing? It is better known as Bovine Feces in >upper-class circles, or even crop/crap circles. :-) > >Best, Frederick > > >> >> >>Hello Evan and Joe, >> I have one word for both of you : BULLSHIT! >>Please stop wasting everyone's time. >> >>Yours Truly, >>Pete Aldo >> >> >>______________________________________________________ >>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 Mon Sep 21 16:55:18 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA02353; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 16:45:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 16:45:25 -0700 Message-ID: <3606D853.2308 earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 17:50:59 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Storms: Blue: issues in CF theory 9.21.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"VseUe1.0.Va.JKk1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22598 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Subject: Re:Blue-Storms discussion Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 13:50:01 -0600 From: Edmund Storms To: rmforall earthlink.net References: 1 [Rich Murray: Blue has just given an excellent summary of the difficulties in the highly developed and successful current theories of physics, that new and novel theories of CF must address, if possible. As a layman, I can only note that some eminent theorists, such as the late Schwinger, and Hagelstein at M.I.T., have been willing to put a lot of effort into imagining perhaps plausible extensions of current theory for the putative CF reactions. One of the problems for the till still-born, just-born, never-born, or undead field of CF, to use a mixture of discriptive labels, is that there is no adaquate venue for publishing and critiquing reports, such there is so much resistance in the regular journals. However, much mainstream physics communication is now via Internet journals. Why not set up an Internet journal for CF research and criticism? This could be as simple as posting reports and critiques on Scott Little's EarthTech website. A group could be recruited to serve as the editorial committee. Scott Little has already shown how quickly and easily long and detailed reports can be publicly posted. Why not expand this initiative into a full-scale CF journal? Scott and Talbott Chubb have set up a website for their general theory of CF, which could be moved to the EarthTech website. Perhaps, the sponsor for EarthTech's program of testing for a working OU device would be willing to sponsor a process that would orchestrate collaborative sharing within the entire CF community. It would be essential for the critics to be fully represented, for they represent the views of mainstream science, and are a necessary balance to the visionary enthusiam of the believers. I wonder also, whether Ed Storms and Dick Blue could discuss Storms' thin film Pd cathodes in detail, publishing the papers and critiques on the EarthTech website, and attracting interest in replication by other groups. What say ye?] 9/21/98 Rich et al. I have discovered the need to adopt some ground rules, before going more deeply into the details this discussion demands. In addition to the proposal I made with respect to the Miles-Bush evaluation, I would like to address an approach that might be more acceptable to Dick Blue. If I understand Dick Blue correctly, claims for excess heat production are irrelevant to proving CANR, unless nuclear products are also detected. Therefore, it is pointless for us to discussion the various merits of the SRI experience or, indeed, any one else’s claims for heat production, no matter how well done. I find this approach to be short-sighted, but at least it eliminates one area we don’t need to dance around. Dr. Blue is willing to entertain the notion of unusually energetic chemical reactions to explain the apparent extra energy. This would make an interesting discussion, if it were not apparent that this suggestion is just a strawman used to deflect the argument from the nuclear arena. If seriously believed, such a possibility should generate great excitement, which is lacking. The two studies which do make the connection between heat and nuclear product (Miles-Bush and Bush) are dismissed because their calorimetry can not be believed any more than the other studies, and because the amount of nuclear product is too small to overcome his proposed explanations. Therefore, their work would seem to have no usefulness in persuading Dick Blue. Is this true? We are left with studies in which are seen only nuclear products, such as tritium, helium or neutrons. Are these worth discussing? A few studies have seen emission of charged particles, which Dr. Blue recommends as a way to study the phenomenon. Should we discuss this work? The bottom line to Dick Blue’s attitude is that he can see no way conventional nuclear theory can explain the observations. Fusion between two deuterons must produce the same products and follow the same selection rules, whether the event occurs in a plasma or in a solid lattice. However, he is willing to discuss a few of the proposed explanations for why the results should be different. I’m not the best person to handle this approach, although I will try to present some of this work. Is this ok? Dr. Blue is unwilling to entertain the idea that the nature of the solid environment plays a role in initiating the reaction and in determining which nuclear reaction is produced. Instead, he proposes a behavior counter to what is observed, which he defends with great vigor. It makes no sense to make up a behavior for a phenomenon you do not believe, and then use this imagined behavior to dismiss what people actually observe. I would be willing to show Dr. Blue how nature actually behaves, but not in the face of such strong objection. Besides, this aspect of the field will not prove that CANR actually exists. It only gives an insight about the phenomenon, once it is accepted. So we can leave this subject alone. In the discussion about cross-talk, I am totally confused. He dismisses the work of SRI reported at Como, based on this explanation and a supposed design defect in the calorimeter. Nevermind, that he has no proof for the proposed current interaction within a supposed bundle of wires. Then he applies this explanation only to this one experiment, the one shown in Fig. 7. What about all the other studies done at SRI showing excess energy, and what about the many other studies, including my own, which see the same pattern of behavior? If not cross-talk, then what? But we are back to calorimetry, which Dick Blue wishes to avoid. Of course, I chose to lump all the anomalous results together because it suits my purpose. Just as Dick Blue lumps the experience obtained from hot fusion with our discussion, because it suits his purpose. It is not a “anything goes” attitude, but an effort to show that a relationship exists. Unfortunately, Dr. Blue rejects my proposed relationship in favor of his own. To make any progress, I will have to show why his explanation is wrong, rather than showing why mine is right. Is this approach you want? Regards, Ed Storms From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 17:49:04 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA00168; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 17:47:26 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 17:47:26 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 19:57:32 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Minn Kota Resent-Message-ID: <"a8Ycz2.0.W2.TEl1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22600 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: snip-- >the >> beginnings of a real revolution in our understanding of electromagnetism >> --- and I believe the results will ultimately be very beneficial to all >of >> humanity. >> > >> In fact, Dr. Hastings' >> _actions_ over the past years attest to his belief in the technology. >> >Provided one believes that the improvement in the Minn Kota design is taken >from Newman, for which you seem to offer no evidence. Absolutely. If you would like to discuss such improvements, you are welcome to give Joe a call. Evan > >Ed Wall >NERL From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 17:58:51 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA03839; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 17:57:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 17:57:00 -0700 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980921201317.00cd8944 popd.ix.netcom.com> X-Sender: atech popd.ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 20:13:17 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Dennis C. Lee" Subject: Re: RF may revive dead batteries Resent-Message-ID: <"c8Kpc.0.vx.RNl1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22601 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hello People; I have heard of voltage spikes causing 'whisker' short circuits in NiCad batteries to open. There was also mention of ion acoustic resonant voltage spikes applied to battery electrolyte such that an OU ZPE interaction occurs. It appears that the intent in Newman's device, given the sheer mass of the coil, is to convert gravity into electricity. Has there been measurements of weight or temperature when the device is running? If the only principal is to create proper wave form for OU battery charging, there's probably an easier way to do that than with a 12,000 pound device. BTW, I've looked at 'Margins of Reality - The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World" by Robert G Jahn and Brenda J. Dunne again. There seems to be scientific evidence to support the Harold Edgerton type school of engineering management (work like *ell, tell everyone everything you know, and seal deals with a handshake). Things are a cookin'. :) Dennis At 05:26 PM 9/21/98 -0400, you wrote: >To: Vortex > >My friend the anonymous electrochemist tells me that I did not understand the >effect seen by Ray-o-vac. "Primary cells stop working when a layer forms . . . >Newman's devices have so many turns of wire that he apparently generates a >strong RF field that allows the remaining chemicals to produce energy." In >other words, exposing dead dry cells to Newman's machine is like heating them >up. You sometimes liberate a little more chemical energy. Newman mistook this >for recharging. > >Ralph Hartwell said he put "dead" batteries in the machine. I compared them to >dowels, but I should have realized that even a dead battery may have a little >unreacted Cd and NiO2. But I do not understand how this process could >bootstrap itself. Suppose Hartwell arrives in the morning with a set of dead >batteries and installs them first thing. How could the machine start running, >generate RF, and break the surface barrier? Perhaps the machine was running >with another set of batteries when Hartwell arrived, and he placed the dead >batteries nearby . . . > >But this speculation is a waste of time. It is nearly impossible to tease out >the truth about an amateur experiment by reading fragmented e-mail messages. A >scientist would write a paper describing each step, and he would publish it, >or post it here or on a web page. He would keep a lab notebook. He would >repeat the experiment many times. He would run it for a long time to be sure >the batteries were really recharged. We could ask him how the batteries were >handled at each step. The equipment would still be in existence. Other people >would be able to try the experiment again. To separate error from truth, we >must have explication, description, repetition, and independent verification. > >- Jed > > > Tall Ships http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 18:09:15 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA10466; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 18:08:14 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 18:08:14 -0700 Message-ID: <3606EDEE.EA9F705D axionet.com> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 17:23:11 -0700 From: Jeane Manning X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: inventors, gotta love 'em References: <199809211742.MAA25769 smtp.jump.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"7wCmb3.0.IZ2.zXl1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22603 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Having seen many examples of weird behavior, I appreciate Mitchell Jones' perspective on the recent discussion -- focus on the invention instead of the inventor.. World-changing ideas often come from people who "march to a different beat". Also it takes an extraordinary ego to insist on spending all of the family's money on magnets, electronics etc., and to maintain an obsession for decades or long enough to develop a unique invention. Granted, sometimes those egos continue to grow, until ridiculously large. Often an inventor thinks he's the Lone Genius who has to save the world singlehandedly with his invention. Such people feel justified in ignoring the niceties. Yes, that's self-defeating, but I don't see how our heavy scorn and scathing wit is going to help matters. Unless their actions are intrusive, why not give these guys a lot of slack, and focus on the invention instead of on their unbusinesslike, obstinate, maybe even rude, characteristics. (I also know inventers in this energy field who are savvy in business, socially smooth, and don't need to be handled with extra tact. But they're fewer in numbers than the prickly ones.) BTW, it seems that Joe Newman's behavior all too often fits a stereotype, and he reportedly thinks I'm an antagonist because I didn't write about him in my book, but nevertheless I can understand why his friends are loyal. Jeane Manning Mitchell Jones wrote: "Creative people are weird. That is simply a fact. Isaac Newton, for example, was certifiable. ... paranoid, wildly idiosyncratic, and extremely volatile. Almost nobody could get along with him. Fortunately, he lived in an age when monied and influential people were willing to overlook his > idiosyncrasies and give him the help he needed in the social realm, so that > the world could benefit from his genius. While I do not intend to compare > Newman to Newton in terms of intellect, I think we need to recognize the > possibility that a person might appear to be nutty as a fruitcake in the > social realm, that he might antagonize virtually everyone whom he > encounters, and yet might still make a valuable contribution if handled > gently. Thus I think the personal antagonisms need to be put aside, and the > focus needs to shift to the process of verifying whether the motor works." From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 18:10:00 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA10410; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 18:08:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 18:08:10 -0700 Message-ID: <3606EDC4.C2BDAECF axionet.com> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 17:22:29 -0700 From: Jeane Manning X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: anomalous alloy? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ykPtc1.0.SY2.uXl1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22602 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A researcher in Seattle, chemist-turned-herbalist Gary Lockhart, once told me about a "mysterious metal alloy that generates heat when wet sand was added to the molten metal". I finally found the references, and wonder if any of you might have access to back issues of the California Mining Journal (he wrote the references as California Mining J Aug 8, 1969 & Nov. 6, 1970 & Feb. 5, 25 1973). I don't know if this metal alloy effect is relevant to new energy research, but he thought it is so I intended to look it up. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 19:35:31 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA16399; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 19:33:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 19:33:39 -0700 Message-ID: <36070D00.4A89 interlaced.net> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 22:35:44 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Molar gas constant References: <3606e1b0.498504392 mail-hub> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"zjDtK3.0.__3.1om1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22604 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > > Hi, > > On searching for a value for this constant, I get basically two > different values, depending on source. One is about 8 joule/mol*K, the > other is 1000 times as large. Has the definition of the constant > changed at some point? > Robin, I get 8.31441 joules/(K * g-mole) . Maybe one source confuses Kg-cal with g-cal or Kg-mole with g-mole in listing their number - I don't know any other way to get the 1000 factor. Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 20:17:37 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA02042; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 20:12:53 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 20:12:53 -0700 From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Molar gas constant Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 03:14:10 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <360e15a0.5687508 mail-hub> References: <3606e1b0.498504392 mail-hub> <36070D00.4A89@interlaced.net> In-Reply-To: <36070D00.4A89 interlaced.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"7CBXP2.0.qV.qMn1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22605 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 21 Sep 1998 22:35:44 -0400, Francis J. Stenger wrote: [snip] >Robin, I get 8.31441 joules/(K * g-mole) . >Maybe one source confuses Kg-cal with g-cal or Kg-mole with g-mole in >listing their number - I don't know any other way to get the 1000 >factor. > >Frank Stenger Kg-mole might be an explanation. They say mol^-1 ... is this kg-mole or gm-mole by definition? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 20:19:15 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA03077; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 20:15:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 20:15:09 -0700 Message-ID: <3607180F.718E lcia.com> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 23:22:55 -0400 From: B25B LCIA.COM (RON BRENNEN) Reply-To: b25b LCIA.COM X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Minn-Kota Thrust Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"dSRZR3.0._l.yOn1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22606 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi all: Since there has been some confusion in the past about converting the thrust of the Mnn-Kota trolling motors to h orsepower, I sent an email to a Minn-Kota distributor asking for the formula. Here is his reply: To convert lbs. of thrust to horsepower: (amps) at high speed multiplied by volts = (watts) (watts) divided by (746)=H.P. Ron Brennen From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 20:25:35 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA07410; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 20:23:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 20:23:39 -0700 From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Minn-Kota Thrust Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 03:24:54 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <360f185e.6389854 mail-hub> References: <3607180F.718E lcia.com> In-Reply-To: <3607180F.718E lcia.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"rr2gF.0.hp1.wWn1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22607 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 21 Sep 1998 23:22:55 -0400, RON BRENNEN wrote: >Hi all: >Since there has been some confusion in the past about >converting the thrust of the Mnn-Kota trolling motors >to h orsepower, I sent an email to a Minn-Kota distributor >asking for the formula. Here is his reply: >To convert lbs. of thrust to horsepower: (amps) at high speed >multiplied by volts = (watts) >(watts) divided by (746)=H.P. >Ron Brennen An excellent example of how not to answer a question ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 20:49:14 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA16911; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 20:47:38 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 20:47:38 -0700 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980921230412.00ccf0f8 popd.ix.netcom.com> X-Sender: atech popd.ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 23:04:12 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Dennis C. Lee" Subject: Re: inventors, gotta love 'em Cc: Alan.CHEAH adecco.com, ahannan@MIT.EDU, deadnuts@deadnuts.com, lupem world.std.com, peg@wintergreen.com, bso@acm.org, brenden molec-geodesics.com, claudeg@world.std.com, DaleSVP@ipa.net, dtassen c-zone.net, clsmith@darwin.bu.edu, ccantor@sequenom.com, 76753.3551 compuserve.com, eben@ergeng.com, ehill@world.std.com, leep world.std.com, ejp@world.std.com, wordpros@inforamp.net, moy ziplink.net, gjcheah@guybutler.com, wellenstein binah.cc.brandeis.edu, hic@world.std.com, jkokor alum.mit.edu, Bensinger@bdhepa.hep.brandeis.edu, jim@msri.org, discjt servtech.com, John Ranta , jsearl tako.demon.co.uk, joshprokop@worldnet.att.net, Leonard Dvorson , atc@wit.edu, ohl@world.std.com, pgm world.std.com, rsmith@itiip.com, raddison@world.std.com, 71022.3001 compuserve.com, 73577.123@compuserve.com, tesla@pupman.com, thiahadge aol.com, tcapizzi@world.std.com, tom.duff@poweroasis.com, TAFAUL aol.com Resent-Message-ID: <"C8Eb_.0.284.Ptn1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22608 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 05:23 PM 9/21/98 -0700, you wrote: >Having seen many examples of weird behavior, I appreciate Mitchell Jones' >perspective on the recent discussion -- focus on the invention instead of the >inventor.. >World-changing ideas often come from people who "march to a different beat". >Also it takes an extraordinary ego to insist on spending all of the family's >money on magnets, electronics etc., and to maintain an obsession for decades or >long enough to develop a unique invention. Granted, sometimes those egos >continue to grow, until ridiculously large. It is our obligation as a society to support ethically worthy inventors before they have gone through too much hardship developing an idea. >Often an inventor thinks he's the >Lone Genius who has to save the world singlehandedly with his invention. Such >people feel justified in ignoring the niceties. I think that the innovative creative process is the pinnacle of the human experience (you guess right, I don't have kids yet). This may be compensation for sacrificing some of the niceties. Barring the idea that artists must suffer, I feel that we as a society must recognize that making ethically worthy inventors as comfortable as possible will improve the quality and quantity of their achievements. These acheivements will benefit the quality of society. >Yes, that's self-defeating, but >I don't see how our heavy scorn and scathing wit is going to help matters. Nevertheless, I got a better idea of the other guy's point of view out of this mess; thank you Jed. >Unless their actions are intrusive, why not give these guys a lot of slack, and >focus on the invention instead of on their unbusinesslike, obstinate, maybe even >rude, characteristics. (I also know inventers in this energy field who are >savvy in business, socially smooth, and don't need to be handled with extra >tact. But they're fewer in numbers than the prickly ones.) Quality of ethics on both sides is a key. The concept of limited resources justifying questionable ethics may have been logical to both sides in the past. Unfortunately, in spite of the promise of this technology, we seem to be stuck in the limited resource paradigm. Is there anybody willing to trust anyone now a days? Wouldn't life be more worthwhile if conditions were such that we could? I feel that the idea of heat death of the universe from entropy also negatively affects general attitudes on a subconscious level. Is this still the belief of mainstream science? What is the sense of acting in a responsible manner for the greater good if everything will be dead or squashed into a singularity someday. I think it was completely irresponsible for mainstream science to have made such declarations of ultimate doom; even if it were true, which I have reason to extremely doubt. It's ironic that some say the government is holding back evidence of UFO's to preserve our belief system and prevent chaos, yet they are willing to allow this doomsday scenario to propagate. If anything, solid evidence of advanced technology might give us hope that we will be better able to engineer and design our way out of the state we're in now. :( :) Dennis Tall Ships http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 21:10:36 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA22912; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 21:08:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 21:08:42 -0700 Message-ID: <01bf01bde5de$c364b760$158f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Minn-Kota Thrust Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 22:09:09 -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: <"crPVt1.0.tb5.9Bo1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22609 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Monday, September 21, 1998 9:26 PM Subject: Re: Minn-Kota Thrust LOL! Good one Robin. With the thrust of a rapier. :-) Fred Robin wrote: >On Mon, 21 Sep 1998 23:22:55 -0400, RON BRENNEN wrote: > >>Hi all: >>Since there has been some confusion in the past about >>converting the thrust of the Mnn-Kota trolling motors >>to h orsepower, I sent an email to a Minn-Kota distributor >>asking for the formula. Here is his reply: >>To convert lbs. of thrust to horsepower: (amps) at high speed >>multiplied by volts = (watts) >>(watts) divided by (746)=H.P. >>Ron Brennen >An excellent example of how not to answer a question ;) > >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 22:04:11 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA10659; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 22:01:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 22:01:35 -0700 Message-Id: <199809220502.AAA06642 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 00:01:29 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: Molar gas constant Resent-Message-ID: <"lFW0l1.0.Tc2.lyo1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22610 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >On Mon, 21 Sep 1998 22:35:44 -0400, Francis J. Stenger wrote: >[snip] >>Robin, I get 8.31441 joules/(K * g-mole) . >>Maybe one source confuses Kg-cal with g-cal or Kg-mole with g-mole in >>listing their number - I don't know any other way to get the 1000 >>factor. >> >>Frank Stenger >Kg-mole might be an explanation. They say mol^-1 ... is this kg-mole >or gm-mole by definition? ***{Mol^-1 refers to the reciprocal of the number expressed in g-moles, unless I miss my guess. That would account for the factor of 1000 straightaway, since the number of joules per g-mole will be 1/1000th the number of joules per Kg-mole and, when you take the reciprocal of that, the 1000 flips into the numerator. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 22:48:43 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA00428; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 22:44:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 22:44:28 -0700 From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Molar gas constant Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 05:45:45 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3611390a.14755787 mail-hub> References: <199809220502.AAA06642 smtp.jump.net> In-Reply-To: <199809220502.AAA06642 smtp.jump.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"BcuMO1.0.b6.xap1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22611 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 00:01:29 -0600, Mitchell Jones wrote: [snip] >***{Mol^-1 refers to the reciprocal of the number expressed in g-moles, >unless I miss my guess. That would account for the factor of 1000 This is what I also understood. >straightaway, since the number of joules per g-mole will be 1/1000th the >number of joules per Kg-mole and, when you take the reciprocal of that, the >1000 flips into the numerator. --Mitchell Jones}*** The number quoted was 1.99 Kcal*mol^-1*K^-1 . As I read it that is a factor 1000 too large. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 21 22:59:25 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA05405; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 22:57:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 22:57:21 -0700 Message-ID: <36073C19.F54A88A2 gte.net> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 22:56:45 -0700 From: Bob Horst X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Minn Kota and Newman References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"N1Bju2.0.IK1.0np1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22612 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Evan Soule wrote: > Yes, at the very least, I do believe > that specific MinnKota motor models manufactured at certain times are OU. > This sounds pretty discouraging. Presumably every motor that Scott tests will be the wrong model or one that just happened to be manufactured at the wrong time. On Evan's suggestion, I tried to call Newman three times today, but he was unavailable. I may try one last time to see if there is any Minn Kota model he believes is always OU. But it does not sound likely. This, plus the hints of legal action against Minn Kota, make it sound like we are headed down the Greg "the lawyers won't let me talk about it" Watson path. -- Bob From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 22 02:03:35 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA21479; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 02:02:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 02:02:35 -0700 Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 02:03:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809220903.CAA06037 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Whirlpower Introduction Resent-Message-ID: <"0biOd1.0.VF5.gUs1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22613 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John, good reply, I just sent in Whirlpower Theory but I guess it will bounce back. I keep forgetting to set my name on the mail. > > As long as it is not all just theory, I don't think many will object. The > focus > here is developing experiments and/or aparatus. Your frame dragging concept > sparked a few imaginations..... That is my plan to and the people connected to Schauberger in Sweden have a plan in the works. > > > Visted some of the links you listed, and... well, you are sharing company > with > some weird cats. Got a headache reading some of that stuff. Hopefully we > can > push this concept a bit closer to the main stream. ha ha ha. These cats may be a bit weird but they are helping me for free as has all the work been done on this to date. People help because they believe and care, not because I paid them. My idea and your idea > are > really not that different. > I agree, I think the frame dragging is the key, gravity is the energy, the system is simple. I don't think I have seen anything near this close in my research. I can't wait to get one built! David From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 22 02:34:17 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA02540; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 02:33:14 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 02:33:14 -0700 Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 01:33:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809220833.BAA05496 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "Jeannette Clark" Reply-To: "Jeannette Clark" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Whirlpower Theory Resent-Message-ID: <"i5OY11.0.Ud.Qxs1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22614 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Whirlpower is a theory about gravitational energy. I hope some of you have had a chance to visit the Whirlpower page. If not, here are some of the highlights of this new Unified Field Theory. First, I want to comment on the Joseph Newman work and other new energy workers. Although I personally think my theory is the only one that will really work I see how a form of electromagnetic zero-point energy could work. It would not, in my opinion, ever get but a tiny bit above zero-point in a best case scenerio but that tiny bit is very important. But I think we will find gravitational zero-point energy is vastly more powerful. There is a long history of people trying to tap the vortex, and since this is the vortex list I will assume there are many here that know a lot of this history. Whirlpower is different, as far as I can tell, in that it does not tap the vortex. It allows the vortex to spin freely. The energy is not in the vortex, according to Whirlpower Theory. It comes from the effect of gravity upon the vortex. Gravity makes the vortex wobble, (wiggle). This action drags the surrounding area. The further away from the vortex this dragging action can actually accelerate the speed of the whirlpool past the speed of the vortex. Much like a turntable is traveling faster the further out from the center. This is also like frame dragging in space. This is a very old theory that was just recently proven around black holes and even on some of our satellites. The Earth is frame dragging sattelites. This says it all. If you have the ears to hear. Einstein said there would be one grand theory that would explain the motion of all things, and the reason would be gravity. He worked many years trying to find and prove his Unified Field Theory without success. Recent data from the Hubble Telescope as revealed gravitation energy as the reason for the motion of spiral galaxies. Before it was thought to be a reaction to a great explosion,(the Big Bang). Now it is thought by state of the art research scientists that have had access to the Hubble, that there is a lot more universe out there that expected. Way past the supposed "background radiation" of the Big Bang. And Stars older than the calculated age of the universe itself. This begs the question what happened before the Big Bang to create these stars? This and the frame dragging data are at my discussion board. Whirlpower comes in many forms I will introduce as time goes if any are interested. But basically it is the same concept. All spinning things wobble, be it ever so great or small. This wobble comes from gravity. If this wobble, or sleeper force as it it sometimes called, can be harnessed without actually touching it, it can generate electricity. We see the same action in the flame and early "fire keepers" had to learn this concept to start a fire. The flame cannot be "snuffed out" while trying build it or get energy from it. The vortex is much the same and early vortex researchers made the mistake of tring to tap into the vortex and basically killed the very power they were trying to tap. They "snuffed" it out. The vortex is "fire", the Fire of the Kundalini". Whirlpower is about making the largest whirlpool possible, not the largest vortex possible. And high speed is not important. Like in a top or gyroscope, the best speed to get the most wobble is not very high. Unlike vortex theories, Whirlpower is about a compound vortex. A combination or compound vortex made from the eddy type outward compression type vortex and the bathtub type inward pull vortex. This will make a huge whirlpool and will resemble the hurricane. Whirlpower is like a hurricane and other vortex theories are like tornados. This giant compound vortex, once built and running will have two systems, the system of water going through the vortex and feedback loops, and the system of water in the donut that is not passing through the vortex and feedback loops. The mass of the vortex system is very small compared to the mass of the donut system, about one tenth. The speed of the systems will be very similar. The numbers here point to more energy in the donut system. The big wheel is placed in the donut system and the vortex continues to run without interference. I think the donut system will generate enough power to maintain the vortex and generate electricity. Not just a little over zero-point but several times over. And the energy will increase with size, much like a hurricane does. I hope this has sparked some interest and hope you all will visit the Whirlpower Theory page. www.ledomedesprit.com/domeworld/whirlpower.html David From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 22 06:11:13 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA25056; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 06:09:58 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 06:09:58 -0700 Message-ID: <01BDE600.E096A740 209-113-17-144.insync.net> From: Allen To: "'David Dennard'" Cc: "'Vortex-L eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Whirlpower Introduction Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 08:11:14 -0500 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 GAA25034 Resent-Message-ID: <"nRqXd3.0.P76.a6w1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22615 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear David, On Tuesday, September 22, 1998 7:26 AM, David Dennard [SMTP:jclark dcn.davis.ca.us] wrote: Since it was just > > announced > > on Network TV that during this past year almost everything science thought > > about > > the vortex has been proven to be wrong. I did not hear about this announcement. When and what Network exactly was it broadcast? Can you tell me more about what was "proven to be wrong". Maybe you know of a web site or two that has more information about it. By the way, welcome to the "Vort" Club. I think your ideas and theories will provide some fresh insight to the list and help stimulate some useful conversation (unlike much of what has transpired in recent weeks, with all the flaming and such). Thanks. Allen From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 22 06:28:38 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA29909; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 06:24:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 06:24:59 -0700 Message-ID: <3607A5B6.46D1 interlaced.net> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 09:27:18 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Molar gas constant References: <199809220502.AAA06642 smtp.jump.net> <3611390a.14755787@mail-hub> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"0vjEl2.0.FJ7.gKw1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22616 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > > The number quoted was 1.99 Kcal*mol^-1*K^-1 . As I read it that is a > factor 1000 too large. Robin, I think this number is OK *if* the source meant: kilogram calories 1.99 -------------------------- (kilogram mole) * deg K or, the same number with g-cal and g-moles. You should just make sure you're using a consistant set! Frank (I hate units) Stenger Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 22 06:56:06 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA09515; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 06:55:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 06:55:17 -0700 Message-ID: <01f501bde630$b49f4f40$158f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Subject: Web Sites in Inorganic Chemical Thermodynamics (http://www.crct.polymtl.ca/FACT Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 07:54:57 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: <"_X6Gl1.0.JK2.4nw1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22617 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: =0A= Web Sites in Inorganic Chemical Thermodynamics <FONT color=3D"#0000aa"> <h2><center> Web Sites in Inorganic Chemical Thermodynamics </center></h2></FONT> <P> <center> <TABLE width=3D100% border=3D0><TR> <TD WIDTH=3D10%></TD> <TD WIDTH=3D80%><FONT color=3D"#0000ff"> <!!- bases de donn&eacute;es et logiciels pour utilisation en = pyrom&eacute;tallurgie, hydrom&eacute;tallurgie, g&eacute;nie chimique, = proc&eacute;d&eacute;s chimiques, &eacute;lectrochimie, g&eacute;ologie, = c&eacute;ramiques, alliages, sels, scories, etc.> - thermochemical databases and software packages in pyrometallurgy, = hydrometallurgy, chemical engineering, geology, electrochemistry and = process simulation for pure substances and non-ideal solutions of gases, = alloys, ceramics, salts, mattes, slags, minerals, aqueous, etc. </FONT></TD> <TD WIDTH=3D10%></TD> </TR></TABLE> </center> <P> <center> Welcome. This site requires a "frames" capable browser.<br> If you would like to access a text-only version of this site please click<A HREF=3D"webnofra.htm"> <I>here</I></A>. </center> From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 22 07:10:09 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA14420; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 07:08:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 07:08:54 -0700 Message-ID: <01f901bde632$9c4a24e0$158f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Cc: "George" Subject: Re: Over-Unity Washing Machine? Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 08:09:17 -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: <"kSU3Z3.0.8X3.rzw1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22618 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex A recent theory posted on Vortex-L got me to take a closer look at my washer(vertical axis) and dryer (horizontal axis). Yes, there is agitation caused by the agitator, but, as soon as the Spin Cycle kicks in my power meter runs backwards! There is some "Frame Dragging" but I think is because the clothes are not properly arranged around the perimeter. The dryer (electric) if running whilst the washer is in the Spin-Frame Dragging Mode, draws it's power from the washer motor which is now acting as an o-u generator. An inexpensive electrical controller that will keep the devices in the Sink (so to speak) will lower my laundry bill enormously. If you haven't tried it, don't knock it. :-) Really Sorry, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 22 08:39:48 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA03545; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 08:38:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 08:38:03 -0700 Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 08:38:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809221538.IAA17751 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: Whirlpower Introduction Resent-Message-ID: <"_z5kf2.0.It.QHy1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22620 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Allen, Thank you, I am glad to be here. Let me explain the Jeannette Clark name and address real quickly. Jeannette is letting me use this computer and mail address. In the post above on Whirlpower Theory I forgot to set my name on the mail box. I hope I won't forget anymore, this is twice now, sorry. I hope all interested will check out the Whirlpower page. From everything I can gather this theory is valid and will work. Of course the proof is in the pudding. I know some of you are thinking, who does this guy think he is? I just want to say this is not just what I think but the thoughts and feedback of hundreds of people over the past year based upon my very simple concept. That a whirlpool can be built in such a way as to generate electricity. Allen, the PBS Special Savage Skies, and an ABC Science Show called Tornados and Lightning (I think ABC) recently aired in the past month carried these messages. "That new information just discovered this year had humbled science and that everything once thought about the vortex was wrong and that science needed to go back to the drawing board and start all over". This was on the Tornados and Lightning Special. "That the hurricane was the most mysterious event in nature". This was on the PBS show. I don't have transcripts for this but I would hope someone on this list saw these shows and can confirm what I say. If not I will try to dig them up because they are very important to my case. Most of my criticizm is from those who think science already know all there is to know about the vortex and hurricanes. I think this is the biggest problem in science. And people like to say science knows it all any time they are confronted with something they can't explain. How many great ideas are snuffed out in this manner is uncalculable. I hope this list has those that want to find answers to mysteries not deny that the mysteries exist. David From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 22 08:40:43 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA03163; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 08:37:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 08:37:07 -0700 Message-ID: <3607C34A.BF859A56 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 18:33:30 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex Subject: Humour: Notice to be included on board of spacecrafts Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"1GdKH1.0.Ln.ZGy1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22619 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi, I think it would be more useful to attach a such a note on board of inter-planetary spacecrafts, instead of a message form humanity to possible ET voyagers, taking account the heavy traffic around: "No serviceable parts inside!" Sorry for wasting the BW. hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 22 08:51:50 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA07438; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 08:50:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 08:50:29 -0700 Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 08:51:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809221551.IAA18526 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Over-Unity Washing Machine? Resent-Message-ID: <"omb-11.0.7q1.4Ty1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22621 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Fredrick, I assume you are talking about the frame dragging aspect of Whirlpower Theory. > > A recent theory posted on Vortex-L got me to take a closer look at my > washer(vertical axis) and dryer (horizontal axis). > > Yes, there is agitation caused by the agitator, > but, as soon as the Spin Cycle kicks in my power meter runs backwards! > > There is some "Frame Dragging" but I think is because the clothes are not > properly arranged around the perimeter. I too have thought about Whirlpower in relation to washers and dryers. When a washer is in spin and out of balence it act much like the frame dragging I propose to tap in Whirlpower. It would not however run a generator in my estimation because a true compound vortex has not been created. The power is there but if tapped it would not sustain the spin for long because the tapping mechanism would most definately cut into the spin. This is the Whirlpower difference. Understanding comes through seeing the purpose for the compound vortex and knowing the vortex itself must not be disturbed. > > If you haven't tried it, don't knock it. :-) > I don't knock it. I think your are very close but in this game there is no such thing as close. It either is or isn't. David From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 22 09:27:05 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA12067; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 09:17:44 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 09:17:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <022101bde643$febdf0a0$158f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: , "David Dennard" Cc: "George" Subject: Re: Over-Unity Washing Machine? Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:13:48 -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: <"HbFNq3.0.Qy2.bsy1s" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22622 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: David Dennard To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tuesday, September 22, 1998 9:52 AM Subject: Re: Over-Unity Washing Machine? You're a good sport David. I was only teasing. The closeness of Whirlpower to The trademarked Whirlpool appliances sparked this attempt at humor. Best Regards, Frederick David wrote: >Fredrick, > >I assume you are talking about the frame dragging aspect of Whirlpower Theory. > > >> >> A recent theory posted on Vortex-L got me to take a closer look at my >> washer(vertical axis) and dryer (horizontal axis). >> >> Yes, there is agitation caused by the agitator, >> but, as soon as the Spin Cycle kicks in my power meter runs backwards! >> >> There is some "Frame Dragging" but I think is because the clothes are not >> properly arranged around the perimeter. > > >I too have thought about Whirlpower in relation to washers and dryers. When a >washer is in spin and out of balence it act much like the frame dragging I >propose to tap in Whirlpower. It would not however run a generator in my >estimation because a true compound vortex has not been created. The power is >there but if tapped it would not sustain the spin for long because the tapping >mechanism would most definately cut into the spin. > >This is the Whirlpower difference. Understanding comes through seeing the >purpose for the compound vortex and knowing the vortex itself must not be >disturbed. > > >> >> If you haven't tried it, don't knock it. :-) >> > > >I don't knock it. I think your are very close but in this game there is no such >thing as close. It either is or isn't. > >David > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 22 09:24:29 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA17349; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 09:16:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 09:16:04 -0700 Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 09:16:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809221616.JAA19937 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bouyancy Question Resent-Message-ID: <"4fi-P.0.-E4.3ry1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22623 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To all, Ross and I have had a good discussion off board about bouyancy. He has much more learning in this matter than I. I take a very simple approach. He states all motion is heat related as far as I can see from his argument, and is standard thermodynamics. But directly to the question of the barrel going up from deep underwater where the Sun does not shine and the heat from the Sun does not penetrate we still see the motion of the the barrel going up. I see the barrel going up because gravity is pulling the more dense water beneath the barrel and pushing it to the surface. I do not see any heat energy being used for this motion. I do not think this motion would exist without the force of gravity. Anybody got a non standard explaination for this gravity energy? David From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 22 09:39:39 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA28710; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 09:37:01 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 09:37:01 -0700 Message-ID: <024501bde647$3bb499c0$158f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: "David Dennard" , Subject: Re: Bouyancy Question Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:36:59 -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: <"0_CUF.0.I07.j8z1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22624 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: David Dennard To: vortex-L eskimo.com Date: Tuesday, September 22, 1998 10:19 AM Subject: Re: Bouyancy Question David wrote: >To all, > >Ross and I have had a good discussion off board about bouyancy. He has much >more learning in this matter than I. I take a very simple approach. > >He states all motion is heat related as far as I can see from his argument, and >is standard thermodynamics. > >But directly to the question of the barrel going up from deep underwater where >the Sun does not shine and the heat from the Sun does not penetrate we still see >the motion of the the barrel going up. > >I see the barrel going up because gravity is pulling the more dense water >beneath the barrel and pushing it to the surface. I do not see any heat energy >being used for this motion. I do not think this motion would exist without the >force of gravity. > >Anybody got a non standard explaination for this gravity energy? In a round-about way, David. The buoyancy of a helium balloon (or the barrel)is zip without an atmosphere (or hydrosphere) held by the Earth's gravity and Solar Heating tha keep them in the gaseous/liquid phase. For instance: 1, Solar energy provides the heat of vaporization of water. 2,Atmosphere-gravity "buoys" the water vapor up to high altitude. 3,Clouds lose the heat of vaporization allowing condensation,and it rains or snows on Mountains and Hills. 4,The Synergistic Solar/Gravitational energy is tapped as Hydropower. Conclusion: Gravity power will NOT "Cycle" ie., is irreversible, without an ancillary energy source? Regards, Frederick > >David > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 22 09:56:09 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA02526; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 09:53:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 09:53:00 -0700 Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 09:53:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809221653.JAA22078 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bouyancy Question Resent-Message-ID: <"YmFEL.0.Kd.hNz1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22625 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Fredrick, Thanks, you said; > > In a round-about way, David. The buoyancy of a helium balloon (or the > barrel)is zip without an atmosphere (or hydrosphere) held by the Earth's > gravity and Solar Heating tha keep them in the gaseous/liquid phase. > > For instance: > > 1, Solar energy provides the heat of vaporization of water. > > 2,Atmosphere-gravity "buoys" the water vapor up to high altitude. This is why I have been saying the Sun vaporizes, gravity evaporates. > > 3,Clouds lose the heat of vaporization allowing condensation,and it rains or > snows on Mountains and Hills. I don't thinks is is just a matter of heat loss. The pressure changes which is a direct result of the force of gravity. In other words gravity is constantly making the pressure but the flux of the atmosphere makes the pressure go up and down. > > 4,The Synergistic Solar/Gravitational energy is tapped as Hydropower. > > Conclusion: Gravity power will NOT "Cycle" ie., is irreversible, without an > ancillary energy source? How about fog? It is there in vapor form, already excited and free of its viscous hold yet is is just sitting there motionless. If the pressure goes up so does the fog. If it goes down it will become dew. I don't see this motion as due to heat but due to gravity. I do see it as a system (synergistic) but I still think the driving force is gravity not heat. Einstein said gravity would be the reason for the motion of all things. I think more and more evidence is pointing that way. This is not to conclude what is known thermodynamically is incorrect, just miss applied when it comes to motion. David > > Regards, Frederick > > > > >David > > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 22 10:11:58 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA09305; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:08:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:08:32 -0700 Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 11:10:10 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: David Dennard cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Whirlpower Introduction In-Reply-To: <199809220903.CAA06037 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"oh3Qy.0.GH2.Fcz1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22626 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, David Dennard wrote: I just sent in Whirlpower Theory but I guess it will bounce back. I keep forgetting to set my name on the mail. ---------------------- Hi David, The list here also has a max k size for e-mail. 44k? 64k? I don't remember for sure, so you also might consider sending in sections or chatpers, depending on the size. best to you & yours -=se=- steve (looking forward to introduction:) ekwall ekwall2 diac.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 22 10:24:50 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA15807; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:23:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:23:24 -0700 Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:24:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809221724.KAA24068 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Whirlpower Theory Resent-Message-ID: <"iYq5V2.0.ks3.Bqz1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22627 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To all, This is just a repost with my real name in hopes everyone gets the message and the messenger in order and understands. > Whirlpower is a theory about gravitational energy. I hope some of you have > had > a chance to visit the Whirlpower page. If not, here are some of the > highlights > of this new Unified Field Theory. > > First, I want to comment on the Joseph Newman work and other new energy > workers. > Although I personally think my theory is the only one that will really work I > > see how a form of electromagnetic zero-point energy could work. It would > not, > in my opinion, ever get but a tiny bit above zero-point in a best case > scenerio > but that tiny bit is very important. But I think we will find gravitational > zero-point energy is vastly more powerful. > > There is a long history of people trying to tap the vortex, and since this is > > the vortex list I will assume there are many here that know a lot of this > history. Whirlpower is different, as far as I can tell, in that it does not > tap > the vortex. It allows the vortex to spin freely. The energy is not in the > vortex, according to Whirlpower Theory. It comes from the effect of gravity > upon the vortex. > > Gravity makes the vortex wobble, (wiggle). This action drags the surrounding > > area. The further away from the vortex this dragging action can actually > accelerate the speed of the whirlpool past the speed of the vortex. Much > like a > turntable is traveling faster the further out from the center. This is also > like frame dragging in space. This is a very old theory that was just > recently > proven around black holes and even on some of our satellites. The Earth is > frame dragging sattelites. This says it all. If you have the ears to hear. > > > Einstein said there would be one grand theory that would explain the motion > of > all things, and the reason would be gravity. He worked many years trying to > find and prove his Unified Field Theory without success. > > Recent data from the Hubble Telescope as revealed gravitation energy as the > reason for the motion of spiral galaxies. Before it was thought to be a > reaction to a great explosion,(the Big Bang). Now it is thought by state of > the > art research scientists that have had access to the Hubble, that there is a > lot > more universe out there that expected. Way past the supposed "background > radiation" of the Big Bang. And Stars older than the calculated age of the > universe itself. This begs the question what happened before the Big Bang to > > create these stars? > > This and the frame dragging data are at my discussion board. > > Whirlpower comes in many forms I will introduce as time goes if any are > interested. But basically it is the same concept. All spinning things > wobble, > be it ever so great or small. This wobble comes from gravity. If this > wobble, > or sleeper force as it it sometimes called, can be harnessed without actually > > touching it, it can generate electricity. > > We see the same action in the flame and early "fire keepers" had to learn > this > concept to start a fire. The flame cannot be "snuffed out" while trying > build > it or get energy from it. The vortex is much the same and early vortex > researchers made the mistake of tring to tap into the vortex and basically > killed the very power they were trying to tap. They "snuffed" it out. The > vortex is "fire", the Fire of the Kundalini". > > Whirlpower is about making the largest whirlpool possible, not the largest > vortex possible. And high speed is not important. Like in a top or > gyroscope, > the best speed to get the most wobble is not very high. > > Unlike vortex theories, Whirlpower is about a compound vortex. A combination > or > compound vortex made from the eddy type outward compression type vortex and > the > bathtub type inward pull vortex. This will make a huge whirlpool and will > resemble the hurricane. Whirlpower is like a hurricane and other vortex > theories are like tornados. > > This giant compound vortex, once built and running will have two systems, the > > system of water going through the vortex and feedback loops, and the system > of > water in the donut that is not passing through the vortex and feedback loops. > > The mass of the vortex system is very small compared to the mass of the donut > > system, about one tenth. The speed of the systems will be very similar. The > > numbers here point to more energy in the donut system. > > The big wheel is placed in the donut system and the vortex continues to run > without interference. I think the donut system will generate enough power to > > maintain the vortex and generate electricity. Not just a little over > zero-point > but several times over. And the energy will increase with size, much like a > hurricane does. > > I hope this has sparked some interest and hope you all will visit the > Whirlpower > Theory page. www.ledomedesprit.com/domeworld/whirlpower.html > > David > > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 22 11:06:55 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA00095; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 11:04:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 11:04:30 -0700 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980922090306.00d23270 popd.ix.netcom.com> X-Sender: atech popd.ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 02:03:06 -0700 To: Bill McMurtry From: "Dennis C. Lee" Subject: Re: Power source/Searl story Cc: freenrg-l eskimo.com, KeelyNet@DallasTexas.net, vortex-L@eskimo.com, Alan.CHEAH adecco.com, alex@frolov.spb.ru, ahannan@MIT.EDU, deadnuts deadnuts.com, lupem@world.std.com, peg@wintergreen.com, bso acm.org, claudeg@world.std.com, DaleSVP@ipa.net, dtassen c-zone.net, sweetser@world.std.com, clsmith@darwin.bu.edu, ccantor sequenom.com, 76753.3551@compuserve.com, eben@ergeng.com, ehill world.std.com, leep@world.std.com, ejp@world.std.com, wordpros inforamp.net, moy@ziplink.net, gjcheah@guybutler.com, wellenstein binah.cc.brandeis.edu, hic@world.std.com, jkokor alum.mit.edu, Jeane Manning , 72240.1256 compuserve.com, Bensinger@bdhepa.hep.brandeis.edu, Jim Hile , jim@msri.org, discjt@servtech.com, John Ranta , jsearl@tako.demon.co.uk, joshprokop worldnet.att.net, Leonard Dvorson , atc wit.edu, ohl@world.std.com, pgm@world.std.com, rsmith@itiip.com, raddison world.std.com, 71022.3001@compuserve.com, 73577.123 compuserve.com, thiahadge@aol.com, tcapizzi@world.std.com, tom.duff poweroasis.com, TAFAUL@aol.com Resent-Message-ID: <"dETHF2.0.D1.jQ-1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22628 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:09 PM 9/22/98 +1000, you wrote: >Hi Dennis, > >At 13:59 21/09/98 -0700, Dennis C. Lee wrote: >> >>Could these people have been threatened? If threats were made, and Searl's >>technology checked out, would you tell everyone who called asking about it? >>Now that Fergie's mother has died in a car crash, there may be reason to >>question the ethics of happenings in England. > >So, you think Searl has nobody to back his claims because EVERYONE has been >threatened? Spare me the conspiracy theories Dennis. Too easy and totally >irrelevant! So if Professor Searl is right, you believe that the people who are receiving great wealth from the way things are now will take faith that they will be able to maintain their status after implementing the new technology. They know that it will be for the good of society and will therefore work to build from scratch. They all have access to David Hudson's monatomics so time is no longer a concern. They will trust that hard work and fair play will get them where they were because that's how they did it before. They have faith that mankind has the maturity and ethics to handle the responsibility of this powerful technology because it is understood by all that working for the greater good is the best one can do and brings one the most satisfaction and everyone has developed the ability and desire to do this by instinct. Money is only a tool which the wealthy have used to do only positive things for society. It would not occur to them to use theats or worse to suppress this new technology because they know negative acts stick to their life force energy and they realise it would be of no use for the technical people will continue research regardless. You say threats are irrelevent because you yourself would not stop working on this technology because it's for the greater good. Your life really isn't worth living if you can't do this research so you will risk the repercussions of ignoring the threats and you will tell anyone who calls whatever they want to know. Oh ya, and everyone is developed enough to be totally honest about everything, right? >>He has probably tried that approach. Searl is an example of society >>suppressing its' inventors for doing too good a job. Searl's behavior is the >>result of his having to do too much of the R&D without mainstream support >>for too long a time. We should all shed tears for what has happened to >>Professor Searl (we're probably next). :( > >Searl's behavior could be the result of a lot of things . Once again, >where is the evidence for all this R&D effort? Anything? While Searl >continues to hide behind a veil of smoke and mirrors, he deserves ZERO >respect, let alone tears. What makes you think that he is hiding behind a veil of smoke and mirrors? How can you be sure that alternative motives fitting the same facts are impossible? How much time have you researched Professor Searl's life and achievements? Surely you wouldn't consider making such statements without being absolutely sure. Giving the benefit of the doubt versus absolute condemnation calls for different levels of confidence in the facts in my opinion. >>Next time, offer Professor Searl 1500 pounds for a look at the magnet >>(market rate admission price for state of the art previews in the >>semiconductor industry I believe). > >What evidence do you have that Searl actually ever created a single working >device? Have you spent 1500 pounds for a private preview of Searl's proof >of principal? If not, then maybe it's not just 1500 pounds, maybe it's a >trillion pounds so that nobody can afford it and he gets to keep playing >'the game' - Come on! Professor Searl told me that 1500 pounds is the going rate. Then again, I honestly respect the man for his work. I keep in mind the hardship he's been through and will give him all the slack he needs and I will always maintain proper respect no matter what. BTW, if I came to you with the same attitude as you have for Professor Searl, how much would you charge me for your life's work? >>God willing and humanity being worthy, >>Professor Searl will find his properly respected place as being at least an >>equal to Tesla's level of technical genius. :) > >You know, there's a huge difference between Tesla's and Searl's >achievements - Tesla demonstrated over and over the creation of practical >devices. Searl just talks about it, over and over. (somewhat inconsistantly >over time, I might add). Should he actually produce some physical >demonstration to back up the hot air, then perhaps I could start comparing >him to other great achievers. Until then... what do you think? Do you remember how Tesla ended up? After he gave us AC power, he suddenly had completely wrong and delusional ideas and deserved to be deprived of R&D funding for the last 40 or so years of his life right? J.P. Morgan shut Tesla out because of the delusion that Wardencliffe would self resonate and give power to anyone in the world who could wind a coil. Morgan was sure this was impossible and his investments in conventional powerplants and the electrical powerline grid had nothing to do with stopping Tesla. Morgan was an honest and forthright person who only worked for the good of society right? >As for us unworthy, unwashed, ungrateful peoples of the world - give me a >break, heard it all before... utter crap! Professor of what? Ever asked >Searl how he obtained his professorship and from where and for what (nicely >of course)? You may be one of the faithful blind followers - not me baby, >it takes more than an endlessly meandering hot air ballon ride to turn me >on these days . I invite you to substantiate your support for Searl with >something more than idol worship. I assume it takes more than a tall story >to gain your support? Look up Herman Weyl's 'Theory of Groups & Quantum Mechanics'. Some of Professor Searl's Magic Squares are based on Klein 4 group math. In my opinion, Professor Searl is lightyears ahead of a personal acquaintance who spent at least 10 years working on the same math trying to do much the same thing. When I showed that aquaintance Professor Searl's Magic Squares, he immediately recognized the matrix structure. He then grew somewhat resentful and was quite negative toward Professor Searl's work. I think it has something to do with trying your best and seeing someone on a level you think you can never reach by your own efforts. I personally see such situations as opportunities to learn not reasons to get upset. To see such ability inspires me. >With evidence, belief becomes irrelevant. > >Regards, Bill. > >P.S. Just thought I'd mention it before you propose it: I've not been paid >off nor am I a government agent, CIA, alien cross-breed, God knows what >else, Searl hater. > >I just can not see the sense in allowing the unsubstantiated claims of >Searl (or anybody else for that matter) to continue waisting productive >lives in a mindless, fruitless search while real progress will be made >elsewhere. I think it should be said. How much money and effort and time >has been invested already by the 'unworthy' people of the world FOLLOWING >Searl's claims, with nothing to show for it? EVIDENCE BRINGS RESPECT. IMO, >Searl should prove his case or... but he can't, can he. You know Dennis, >this about sums it up - Searl will be remembered as one of the greatest >frauds of the latter half of the 20th Century. IMCO, of course. Wanna bet? 1500 pounds each for Professor Searl's preview tickets. Loser pays all expenses. If more than a few want to come along, I'll just accept 1500 pounds each. Professor Searl would then get the other 1500 pounds each. That's 1500 British pounds sterling of course. Be forewarned that I am capable of defending myself and Professor Searl, so there will be no funny business whatsoever. If necessary, my life says so. Dennis Tall Ships http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 22 11:17:02 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA05170; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 11:14:50 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 11:14:50 -0700 Message-ID: <3607E7A9.B918D539 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 21:08:41 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex Subject: Cannon for Neutral Particles (eprint: cond-mat/9809103) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"0gYhQ1.0.eG1.Oa-1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22629 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Condensed Matter, abstract cond-mat/9809103 Cannon for Neutral Particles Author: V. I. Yukalov, E. P. Yukalova Comments: 1 file, 9 pages, Latex, no figures Subj-class: Condensed Matter; Atomic Physics Dynamics of spin-polarized neutral particles, such as neutrons or neutral atoms and molecules, in magnetic fields is studied. A new regime of motion is found where particles move mainly in one direction forming a well-collimated beam. This regime suggests a mechanism for creating devices emitting directed beams of neutral particles and can be used for creating well-collimated beams of atom lasers. Available from LANL archive http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/cond-mat/9809103 Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 22 11:48:25 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA20903; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 11:45:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 11:45:41 -0700 Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 12:47:14 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: David Dennard cc: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bouyancy Question /scuba tanks In-Reply-To: <199809221616.JAA19937 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"OAsL.0.U65.K1_1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22630 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, David Dennard wrote: [snip most] But directly to the question of the barrel going up from deep underwater where the Sun does not shine and the heat from the Sun does not penetrate we still see the motion of the the barrel going up. I see the barrel going up because gravity is pulling the more dense water beneath the barrel and pushing it to the surface. I do not see any heat energy being used for this motion. I do not think this motion would exist without the force of gravity. -------------------------------- Hi David, (thinking water barrel) This 'hands-on' story may or may not supply support, as I'm not sure if your "barrel" in full of air (then released etc.), but in the ~older days (before j/k-valves (sea-hunt era:)) I used to do a lot scuba diving off florida. 1960s. My best friend one day "ditched" his tank (as it was empty, we often squeezed the last breathe out of them), to get to the surface for a breather of air).. anyway he ask me to go get it. I was surprized to see it floating upside down, bobbing on the bottom (about 60') on its regulator... bobing and going with the currents flow.. we'd of lost it if I hadn't returned to it so promplty. (see a tank on a pogo stick like action (up & down) with the weight of the valve stem being down)... This was odd, as in ditch & don (where we'd throw each others full tanks over board for ~fun~ and say "go get it" a full tank will SINK like a rock a sit on the bottom), and of course the deeper one goes the more compressed the inside air was ~on release~ to breathe. 150-180' dives took 2 or more tanks to do anywork, (play:) / and the newly released official navy/divers decompression tables were just making their rounds, reminds us of nitrogen narcosis (the bends) and noted. Anyway, one tank at 2,000psi at 10' would last an hour and a half or more depending on how you breathed. but at 100' it was so compressed the time was cut to just tens of minutes. (hence you took a spare or two). An unused tank return to the surface was back to 2,000 psi _No Net_, No Lose, _No Gain_. Although it IS fun at 180' if you know your Not going to need it to just open the valve and let it (most of it) out. HUGE surface disturbances for those on boat above expanding all the way up! A tank full of water would of course sink to the bottom of the marianes trench (7 miles) and stay there. the same tank with air, ~might~ even implode on the way down (returning all of its air to the surface) _No Gain_ as it was precompressed anyway. Hope these real-life observations fit in your theory above, but I'm seeing mostly air pressure and water bouyancy. Gravity just pointed to the direction the tank (your "barrel?") would go. Pressures did and do direct a deplete tank.. I suppose there is (as in all things) a netrual depth where the tank would neither fall or rise as just float away 500' under etc. But to raise your barrel? without heat? i dunno..:( Your example of water droplets (clouds) being bouyanced upward sound correct, (as even a helium ballon in a car will float in opposition when the car turns and the moving air mass relocates). I love seeing opposition like that don't you? Off to look at your whirlpool er whirlPOWER page.. sounds good to me! best to you & yours, -=se=- steve (p.s. I may be all wet:) ekwall ekwall2 diac.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 22 12:39:42 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA08413; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 12:35:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 12:35:15 -0700 Message-ID: <19980922193734.29740.rocketmail send104.yahoomail.com> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 12:37:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Anton Rager Subject: Signing Off..... To: vortex-l eskimo.com, freenrg-l@eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"ct9bJ3.0.G32.ol_1s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22631 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: So long all, Due to the other activites in my life, I just don't have time to follow Vortex-L/Freenrg-L anymore. This will be my last post. My mailbox keeps filling up, and I must get on with other things in life. Good luck to the group[s] on producing a working OU/CF/AntiGravity device sometime soon. == 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 Sep 22 14:43:45 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA06139; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 14:40:20 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 14:40:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 16:30:49 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: AN INTERESTING LETTER... Resent-Message-ID: <"ajEPX3.0.nV1.1b12s" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22632 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: AN INTERESTING LETTER... For those who might not have seen this letter..... [The following letter was forwarded to my attention. (To respect their privacy, several names and/or addresses/phone numbers are not included.)] [Letter on stationery with seal of USDOE] Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 May 12, 1998 [date stamped] Mr. William Thomas Washington, D.C. 20038 Dear Mr. Thomas: Let me take this opportunity to thank you for participating in the Comprehensive National Energy Strategy (CNES) hearings in Washington [19FEB98]. During your presentation the Secretary committed to a response to your questions about the Department's investigation of Zero Point Energy (ZPE). Department of Energy scientists and others have investigated zero point energy sciences and are still in the stage of demonstratintg scientific feasibility. Thus far, results clearly show that there is a net residual energy even at the zero absolute temperature, under vacuum conditions. A number of technical papers have been published in respected journals stating that, theoretically, zero point energy can be extracted from electromagnetic fluctuations of the vacuum. Additionally, eight patents have been issued on zero point energy, including one issued to the Air Force Rocket Propulsion Laboratory. Presently, scientific feasibility studies are in the beginning stages and the development of a technology for energy production from ZPE may be decades away. More information about ZPE is attached for your use. I hope this information and the enclosure are helpful. Sincerely, Robert W. Gee Assistant Secretary Office of Policy and International Affairs ___________________________________________________ Personally, I find the above letter significant. For more than 30 years, Joseph Newman has sent the Department of Energy (and/or related Federal agencies) information about his discoveries concerning a new source of energy: the proper harnessing of the Gyroscopic Massergy's kinetic energy. Finally, this new source of energy is beginning to be "officially" recognized by the DOE. I also find of great interest the following statement from the above letter: "....EIGHT PATENTS HAVE BEEN ISSUED ON ZERO POINT ENERGY, INCLUDING ONE ISSUED TO THE AIR FORCE ROCKET PROPULSION LABORATORY." It would be interesting to read these 8 patents --- especially the one issued to the Air Force Rocket Propulsion Laboratory. The "ZPE" is actually the Gyroscopic Massergy about which Joseph Newman has written for over 30 years. Sincerely, Evan Soule' From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 22 14:45:53 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA02895; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 14:43:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 14:43:54 -0700 Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 17:41:56 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: [ON/OFF TOPIC] More NatSpeak samples Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809221744_MC2-5A3F-118C compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"jR1lf3.0.3j.Pe12s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22633 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex This voice input program Naturally/Speaking has a training feature where you feed it text files and then it asks you how to pronounce new words. I fed it some chapters from the Mizuno book, and then I dictated the following passage from the Introduction. It came out remarkably well. I was able to enter this text as rapidly, perhaps more rapidly, than I can type. However, I have not found this tool suitable for revising text. Tchnical prose converts to text accurately. It works less well with informal Anglo-Saxon words. It's no good for poetry. I still find typing easier and faster, but I may get used to voice input. Attached is the Mizuno book extract, which was easy, and some passages from a paper by Storms, which generated more errors. With a little more training it would work better. - Jed - - - - - - - - - - - Stanley Pons noted that the cold fusion effect has a kind of "memory." After a perturbation, temperature tends to return to to [MY STUTTER] a fixed level. Perhaps this is not so strange. The physical configuration of deuterons in the metal controls the power level. Tiny spots in the surface of the cathode are probably formed in what Storms calls "a special configuration of matter" with highly active, densely packed deuterium. Until these spots change or disperse, the nuclear fuel being fed into the reaction remains constant, so the cell tends to return to the same power level. A chemical wood fire works the same way. You can partially douse a roaring fire. If the fire does not go out altogether and the wood remains in the same position, after while it will start burning again and return to its former power level. Pons and Fleischmann used a 3 min. [I SAID THREE MINUTE - IT AUTO CONVERTED] pulse of heat to "kick" their cells from low level heat to high level heat that rapidly increased to boil off. Proc. ICCF4, p. 96 SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF HEAT PRODUCTION USING THE "COLD FUSION" EFFECT Edmund Storms Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired) RAW OUTPUT WITH NOTES: II. [YOU SAY 'ROMAN TWO'] EXPERIMENTAL In the study uses a closed, scared, Paris [PYREX] glass, isoperibolic type calorimeter as described previously. [1] Calibration is were [WAS] done using the electronic message [OOPS!] before excess energy was observed and an internal heater after excess heat production started. Generally, calibration was done before and after excess heat production. No significant changes were observed in the calibration constant during the study. The total uncertainty in the measured heat about [MISPROUNCED] value is about +/- 4%. Because random variations of +/- 0.2 watch and [WATT] are observed, excess heat is not claimed unless the excess exceeds 0.5 watt. Details of the calorimeter design in the calibration methods are described in reference one. A palladium cathode obtained from to mark are [TANAKA] Metals Co. [SAID 'COMPANY' - AUTO CONVERTED], Japan, (batch #4) is used after being launched [WASHED] with acid own [ACETONE]. This discharge with deuterium in 0.4M LiOD [TYPED] at 20 mA/cm^2 until the de-/PD [CLOSE! D/Pd] ratio becomes [SAID WRONG WORD] became constant at 0.84 after nine hours. The charging behavior was similar to that produced by Batch #1 which produced significant excess heat. [1] Electrolysis was continued with variations and sell [CELL] current, cell temperature, and periodic calibration is [CALIBRATIONS] without the production of excess energy. At 575 hrs [TYPED], excess heat was observed following the addition of 28 TP and [PPM] aluminum to a new collector lytic [ELECTROLYTIC] solution. Once excess car [CAR? POWER!] was observed, the magnitude of the excess increased each time the cell current was raised to 2.5 A has shown in think one. [OOPS! SHOULD BE: as shown in Fig. 1] eventually, excess power became stable and a [THE] study was commenced. The excess volume in this sample is two percent when when the the flesh beauty [OOPS] D/Pd [TRAINED ABOVE] ratio is 0.7. [4] The anode-cathode [YOU SAY 'ANODE HYPHEN CATHODE'] assembly was modified to allow temperature measurement near the cathode. Figure 2 shows the configuration of the anode-cathode assembly and the location of the glass case summer couple [GLASS ENCASED THERMOCOUPLE] probes. Because the anode is made from platinum wire mesh, fluid flow is restricted in the inner probe tends to have a higher temperature than the outer pro when heat originates at the palladium cathode. Consequently, the location of excess heat is revealed by this design. III. RESULTS A. relationship between cell current and excess power The effect of cell current is determined by changing the cell current from 0.1 A 23 [to 3] A in steps and back down 20.1 [to 0.1] A. this cycle is repeated twice during each data set. Steady-state is reached after 15 minutes and current is maintained constant for additional 15 men. [MIN.] Data are taken each minute during the second interval and average to give the plot in value. Figure 3 compares several examples of how the current density effects excess power density. Most of the plot points showing the behavior observed during other studies are averaged ideas extracted from publish graphs containing many points. [I read the last sentence very quickly. Here it is again at a more reasonable pace.] Most of the plotted points showing the behavior observed during other studies are averaged values extracted from published graphs containing many points. [Attaboy, NatSpeak! Got it right.] CORRECTED: II. EXPERIMENTAL The study uses a closed, stirred, pyrex-glass, isoperibolic-type calorimeter as described previously. [1] Calibration was done using the electronic message before excess energy was observed and an internal heater after excess heat production started. Generally, calibration was done before and after excess heat production. No significant changes were observed in the calibration constant during the study. The total uncertainty in the measured heat value is about +/- 4%. Because random variations of +/- 0.2 watt are observed, excess heat is not claimed unless the excess exceeds 0.5 watt. Details of the calorimeter design in the calibration methods are described in reference one. A palladium cathode obtained from Tanaka Metals Company, Japan, (batch #4) is used after being washed with acetone. This is charged with deuterium in 0.4M LiOD at 20 mA/cm^2 until the D/Pd ratio became constant at 0.84 after 9 hours. The charging behavior was similar to that produced by Batch #1 which produced significant excess heat. [1] Electrolysis was continued with variations and cell current, cell temperature, and periodic calibrations without the production of excess energy. At 575 hrs, excess heat was observed following the addition of 28 ppm aluminum to a new electrolytic solution. Once excess power was observed, the magnitude of the excess increased each time the cell current was raised to 2.5 As shown in Fig. 1, eventually, excess power became stable and the study was commenced. The excess volume in this sample is two percent when when the D/Pd ratio is 0.7. [4] The anode-cathode assembly was modified to allow temperature measurement near the cathode. Figure 2 shows the configuration of the anode-cathode assembly and the location of the glass-encased thermocopule probes. Because the anode is made from platinum wire mesh, fluid flow is restricted in the inner probe tends to have a higher temperature than the outer pro when heat originates at the palladium cathode. Consequently, the location of excess heat is revealed by this design. III. RESULTS A. relationship between cell current and excess power The effect of cell current is determined by changing the cell current from 0.1 A to 3 A in steps and back down to 0.1 A. this cycle is repeated twice during each data set. Steady-state is reached after 15 minutes and current is maintained constant for additional 15 min. Data are taken each minute during the second interval and average to give the plot in value. Figure 3 compares several examples of how the current density effects excess power density. Most of the plotted points showing the behavior observed during other studies are averaged values extracted from published graphs containing many points. . . . [By the way, everyone should read this paper.] From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 22 15:35:18 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA25486; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 15:32:14 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 15:32:14 -0700 Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 18:29:49 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Correcting Mr. NatSpeak Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809221832_MC2-5A40-1D6E compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"zUtS31.0.AD6.cL22s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22634 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Oops. The Storms paper extract should say: "Calibration was done using the electrolytic method," not "electronic message." That's the problem with this thing. It makes mistakes and you overlook them. Maybe when I get used to it I will spot them more readily. Maybe this is an advantage: I can blame my mistakes on the Voice Input software. In the future, children will say "NatSpeak messed up my report" instead of "the dog ate my homework." - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 22 16:47:12 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA22550; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 16:45:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 16:45:55 -0700 Message-ID: <360854E5.31A0 fc.net> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 18:54:45 -0700 From: John Fields Organization: Austin Instruments, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; U; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com CC: jfields fc.net Subject: Re: AN INTERESTING LETTER... References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"81i0O3.0.EW5.oQ32s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22635 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Evan Soule wrote: > > AN INTERESTING LETTER... > > For those who might not have seen this letter..... > > [The following letter was forwarded to my attention. (To respect their > privacy, several names and/or addresses/phone numbers are not included.)] > > [Letter on stationery with seal of USDOE] > > Department of Energy > Washington, DC 20585 > May 12, 1998 [date stamped] > > Mr. William Thomas > Washington, D.C. 20038 > > Dear Mr. Thomas: > > Let me take this opportunity to thank you for participating in the > Comprehensive National Energy Strategy (CNES) hearings in Washington > [19FEB98]. During your presentation the Secretary committed to a response > to your questions about the Department's investigation of Zero Point Energy > (ZPE). > > Department of Energy scientists and others have investigated zero point > energy sciences and are still in the stage of demonstratintg scientific > feasibility. Thus far, results clearly show that there is a net residual > energy even at the zero absolute temperature, under vacuum conditions. > > A number of technical papers have been published in respected journals > stating that, theoretically, zero point energy can be extracted from > electromagnetic fluctuations of the vacuum. Additionally, eight patents > have been issued on zero point energy, including one issued to the Air > Force Rocket Propulsion Laboratory. > > Presently, scientific feasibility studies are in the beginning stages and > the development of a technology for energy production from ZPE may be > decades away. > > More information about ZPE is attached for your use. I hope this > information and the enclosure are helpful. > > Sincerely, > Robert W. Gee > Assistant Secretary > Office of Policy and International Affairs > > ___________________________________________________ > > Personally, I find the above letter significant. For more than 30 years, > Joseph Newman has sent the Department of Energy (and/or related Federal > agencies) information about his discoveries concerning a new source of > energy: the proper harnessing of the Gyroscopic Massergy's kinetic energy. > Finally, this new source of energy is beginning to be "officially" > recognized by the DOE. > > I also find of great interest the following statement from the above letter: > > "....EIGHT PATENTS HAVE BEEN ISSUED ON ZERO POINT ENERGY, INCLUDING ONE > ISSUED TO THE AIR FORCE ROCKET PROPULSION LABORATORY." > > It would be interesting to read these 8 patents --- especially the one > issued to the Air Force Rocket Propulsion Laboratory. > > The "ZPE" is actually the Gyroscopic Massergy about which Joseph Newman has > written for over 30 years. > > Sincerely, > > Evan Soule' -- Vortex-l, According to replies I have received from Joe, through Evan, his "Gyroscopic Particle" theory ascribes the conversion of mass of a conductor into energy through the employment of his various schemes. Nowhere was tapping the energy of the vacuum even mentioned until recently, when I suggested to Joe that perhaps the arc occurring at the brush structure of his motor was tapping into the energy of the aether and giving him the results he saw. On other occasions I have critiqued Joe's science by finding (what I considered to be) errors in his measurement techniques and reporting them to him. These critiques were always met with derision and insult, causing me to believe that scientific truth was/is not at the forefront of his priorities. As a result of my skepticism and continuing inquiry into Joe's scientific integrity, I was banned from the list Ralph Hartwell maintained for Joe. I've been lurking on this list for (I guess) a year or so, have tested the waters with a few snide comments, and have been properly redressed for them. Thank you all. What's bothering me now after having read Evan's post, above, is that Joe's camp seems to be saying: "We knew all about this before any of you all called it ZPE, and we're claiming it as ours." Have they not read Boyer? or Puthoff? or Shoulders? et.al? If not, then clearly Joe's camp is standing on the shoulders of midgets. John Fields, Austin Instruments, Inc. El Presidente Research, Design, and Development "I speak for the company" Austin, Republic of Texas From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 22 17:34:22 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA08183; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 17:32:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 17:32:03 -0700 Message-Id: <199809230032.TAA28574 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 19:31:55 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: Minn Kota and Newman Resent-Message-ID: <"0HN2S2.0.m_1.2642s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22636 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Evan Soule wrote: > >> Yes, at the very least, I do believe >> that specific MinnKota motor models manufactured at certain times are OU. >> > >This sounds pretty discouraging. Presumably every motor that Scott tests will >be >the wrong model or one that just happened to be manufactured at the wrong time. > >On Evan's suggestion, I tried to call Newman three times today, but he was >unavailable. I may try one last time to see if there is any Minn Kota model he >believes is always OU. But it does not sound likely. > >This, plus the hints of legal action against Minn Kota, make it sound like we >are >headed down the Greg "the lawyers won't let me talk about it" Watson path. > >-- Bob ***{Newman is apparently circulating a video in which he tests a 58 lb thrust Minn Kota motor. What he basically does, according to a description I have seen, is drive a small boat around a circular course at full throttle while measuring elapsed time, voltage, and current. The Minn Kota draws the electrical equivalent of .5 horsepower (373 watts). Assuming Joe was using a 12 volt battery, that means the motor was pulling about 31 amps. He then goes around the same course at full throttle using a 3 HP gasoline motor, and takes the same amount of time, as measured by a clock with a 10 inch face that is oriented toward the camera. Joe's inference is apparently that the 1/2 horse Minn Kota motor with 58 lbs of thrust is as powerful as a 3 HP gasoline motor. (Another possibility would be that the drive system of the gasoline motor is inefficient at full throttle.) Unfortunately, when I checked out the Minn Kota website with the intention of ordering that motor so I could test it myself, it was not listed! Likewise, the 46 lb thrust model which Newman discusses in the latest edition of his book is also not listed. The implication: Minn Kota has pulled the Newman motors out of their inventory, probably due to the threat of litigation from Joe. In other words, the goose that was about to lay the golden egg has disappeared in a cloud of feathers, thanks to Joe's shotgun blast, and that's that. AAAUGH!!!!! (Sorry. I don't know what came over me.) --Mitchell Jones}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 22 18:04:19 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA16884; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 18:02:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 18:02:18 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 20:12:25 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: AN INTERESTING LETTER... Resent-Message-ID: <"C88AK.0.g74.PY42s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22637 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Evan Soule wrote: >> >> AN INTERESTING LETTER... >> >> For those who might not have seen this letter..... >> >> [The following letter was forwarded to my attention. (To respect their >> privacy, several names and/or addresses/phone numbers are not included.)] >> >> [Letter on stationery with seal of USDOE] >> >> Department of Energy >> Washington, DC 20585 >> May 12, 1998 [date stamped] >> >> Mr. William Thomas >> Washington, D.C. 20038 >> >> Dear Mr. Thomas: >> >> Let me take this opportunity to thank you for participating in the >> Comprehensive National Energy Strategy (CNES) hearings in Washington >> [19FEB98]. During your presentation the Secretary committed to a response >> to your questions about the Department's investigation of Zero Point Energy >> (ZPE). >> >> Department of Energy scientists and others have investigated zero point >> energy sciences and are still in the stage of demonstratintg scientific >> feasibility. Thus far, results clearly show that there is a net residual >> energy even at the zero absolute temperature, under vacuum conditions. >> >> A number of technical papers have been published in respected journals >> stating that, theoretically, zero point energy can be extracted from >> electromagnetic fluctuations of the vacuum. Additionally, eight patents >> have been issued on zero point energy, including one issued to the Air >> Force Rocket Propulsion Laboratory. >> >> Presently, scientific feasibility studies are in the beginning stages and >> the development of a technology for energy production from ZPE may be >> decades away. >> >> More information about ZPE is attached for your use. I hope this >> information and the enclosure are helpful. >> >> Sincerely, >> Robert W. Gee >> Assistant Secretary >> Office of Policy and International Affairs >> >> ___________________________________________________ >> >> Personally, I find the above letter significant. For more than 30 years, >> Joseph Newman has sent the Department of Energy (and/or related Federal >> agencies) information about his discoveries concerning a new source of >> energy: the proper harnessing of the Gyroscopic Massergy's kinetic energy. >> Finally, this new source of energy is beginning to be "officially" >> recognized by the DOE. >> >> I also find of great interest the following statement from the above letter: >> >> "....EIGHT PATENTS HAVE BEEN ISSUED ON ZERO POINT ENERGY, INCLUDING ONE >> ISSUED TO THE AIR FORCE ROCKET PROPULSION LABORATORY." >> >> It would be interesting to read these 8 patents --- especially the one >> issued to the Air Force Rocket Propulsion Laboratory. >> >> The "ZPE" is actually the Gyroscopic Massergy about which Joseph Newman has >> written for over 30 years. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Evan Soule' > >-- > >Vortex-l, > >According to replies I have received from Joe, through Evan, his >"Gyroscopic Particle" >theory ascribes the conversion of mass of a conductor into energy through >the employment >of his various schemes. > >Nowhere was tapping the energy of the vacuum even mentioned until >recently, when I >suggested to Joe that perhaps the arc occurring at the brush structure of >his motor was >tapping into the energy of the aether and giving him the results he saw. > >On other occasions I have critiqued Joe's science by finding (what I >considered to be) >errors in his measurement techniques and reporting them to him. These >critiques were >always met with derision and insult, causing me to believe that scientific >truth was/is >not at the forefront of his priorities. > >As a result of my skepticism and continuing inquiry into Joe's scientific >integrity, I >was banned from the list Ralph Hartwell maintained for Joe. > >I've been lurking on this list for (I guess) a year or so, have tested the >waters with a >few snide comments, and have been properly redressed for them. Thank you all. > >What's bothering me now after having read Evan's post, above, is that >Joe's camp seems >to be saying: "We knew all about this before any of you all called it ZPE, >and we're >claiming it as ours." > >Have they not read Boyer? or Puthoff? or Shoulders? et.al? > >If not, then clearly Joe's camp is standing on the shoulders of midgets. > > >John Fields, Austin Instruments, Inc. >El Presidente Research, Design, and Development >"I speak for the company" Austin, Republic of Texas Dear John, Thanks for your comments. With respect to comments about "midgets", I can certainly appreciate one's short-sighted comments based upon one's own lack of understanding of Joseph Newman's technology. If one understood Joseph Newman's technology, then one would know that the electromagnetic embodiment --- which operates upon the principle of the relocation of gyroscopic massergies from one domain to another -- is only one of different embodiments operating upon the same principle: the Theory of the Gyroscopic Massergy. As Joe has described in his writings for many years, these gyroscopic massergies represent the fundamental unit of the universe. The so-called "ZPE" -- accessible via certain electromagnetic interactions (among others) is but one manifestation of the fundamental Gyroscopic Massergy. John, it was not your skepticism which banned you from Ralph Hartwell's list, but your mode of expressing it with initiated sarcasm, ridicule, and -- as you yourself describe, "snide comments." Best regards, Evan Soule' From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 22 18:18:44 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA22051; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 18:16:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 18:16:47 -0700 Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 18:17:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809230117.SAA20331 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bouyancy Question /scuba tanks Resent-Message-ID: <"cB5FF3.0.OO5.-l42s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22638 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Hi Steve, Thank you for your interest, I look forward to your comments on the Whirlpower page. You wrote; > Hope these real-life observations fit in your theory above, but I'm > seeing mostly air pressure and water bouyancy. Gravity just pointed to > the direction the tank (your "barrel?") would go. I see the "barrel much like a bubble that is released. When a bubble of air is released from a scuba tank it goes up. Gravity is pulling the more dense water beneath the bubble and pushing it to the surface. I don't see heat causing that motion. Pressures did and do > direct a deplete tank.. And pressure is the effect of gravity. I suppose there is (as in all things) a netrual > depth where the tank would neither fall or rise as just float away 500' > under etc. But to raise your barrel? without heat? i dunno..:( I know it must sound strange to the sophisticated scientist but in commmon sence terms it makes a lot of sense. I think what science is lacking most is plain old common sense. > Your example of water droplets (clouds) being bouyanced upward sound > correct, (as even a helium ballon in a car will float in opposition when > the car turns and the moving air mass relocates). I love seeing opposition > like that don't you? I think it is correct too. And it is a very important example of gravitational energy, and it backs up Einsteins theory that the reason for all motion is gravity. Why science, that is largely based on Eisteins work does not acknowledge his most important work is hard for me to understand. If the current frame dragging informaion had come out in Einstein's day he would have been all over it in a heartbeat. That was the missing piece of the puzzel back then, now the puzzel has changed and most don't even see the importance. > > Off to look at your whirlpool er whirlPOWER page.. sounds good to me! Thank you Steve, Next I will go into greater detail on the relationship of Whirlpower to the hurricane. As hurricane Georges gets ready to hit the Keys I will pass on key information on how the hurricane works and point out some very interesting features you can recognize once you know what to look for. To all, Please excuse me for being very excited about all this but this is a true Eureka and if true the most important information of our times. David Dennard The Phoenix From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 22 18:30:25 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA27132; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 18:28:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 18:28:52 -0700 Message-ID: <000001bde691$7028a440$414fd3d0 default> From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: AN INTERESTING LETTER... Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 19:13:39 -0400 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: <"-LR4_3.0.od6.Jx42s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22639 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Evan posted a letter from DoE mentioning favorably ZPE as a potential energy source, worthy of study, and some patents on extraction. He then says: >The "ZPE" is actually the Gyroscopic Massergy about which Joseph Newman has >written for over 30 years. > >Sincerely, > >Evan Soule' -------------------- Evan, this isn't quite fair. The intellectual concepts used by the physics establishment to describe and discuss ZPE do not fit the language or structure which Joe has adamantly insisted on for these 30 years. I think it very unlikely that the inventors involved walked from Joe's formulations to the proposed ZPE devices. This is, of course, and inference; I haven't seen the patents. In a broad sense, Joe is by no means the first to propose an energy-rich substrate to the Universe, nor to propose models involving spinning entities. His descriptive language was useful to him, and he distributed monographs to many institutions. It does not necessarily follow that his initiatives are specifically related to any subsequent developments. There may come a time when Joe's formulations will find a clear relationship to a generally accepted theory of operational devices, but that time is not yet. I understand that you are staking a claim of Joe's behalf. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 22 19:09:34 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA07928; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 19:07:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 19:07:47 -0700 Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 19:09:03 -0700 Message-Id: <199809230209.TAA18547 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: Whirlpool Introduction Resent-Message-ID: <"U42_r3.0.ex1.nV52s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22640 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: "That the hurricane was the most mysterious event in >nature". This was on the PBS show. Was it NOVA? Most of my criticizm is from those >who think science already know all there is to know about the vortex and >hurricanes. I think this is the biggest problem in science. And people like to >say science knows it all any time they are confronted with something they can't >explain. Do not make a mistake of thinking that people like me who criticize your comments are trying to snuff your comments out, or impede your research. I am just making direct and to the point comments on where you are missing things taht are taking place. Personally, I am confident that physicists don't have a clue about what is going on in the atmosphere from first principles. But this is because I am confident that there are gravitational like waves heading out of the sun which are nearly in phase and frequency lock with the earth's rotation, and thus capable of being resonantly amplified to drive phenomena like hurricanes. Tornadoes can spring up due to more localized phenomena, but hurricanes require a more coherent forcing function. Anyway, no one on the planet has such a forcing function in their theories with a bonified source of identifiable energy, except for the model I am working with since I have identified both the geo physical phenomena and the solar acoustic oscillations driving them. other ideas like your whirlpool ideas as best I understand them, suppose that gravity is doing it, but you don't understand the distinction between a force field, gravity, and energy (ie even gravitational potential energy). It is one thing for a process to work due to buoyancy and thus require to exist in a gravitational field. It is a completely different thing for the energy driving the thing to be coming from, the field. When a rock falls, the energy you get out was put into the rock when it was lifted. Gravity is sort of like compressing a spring in that sense. The spring is a passive device. You don't see the uncompressed spring dancing down the table lifting rocks up into the sky. Only the compressed spring does that and someone had to put energy into the spring system via work, W=F*d work equals force times distance. Anyway, yes, I agree that today's physics cannot explain hurricanes. I agree they are whirlpools. I agree this means there is a source of un-accounted for energy that is no doubt present in hurricanes. However, I also know that if there are gravitational wave oscillations heading out of the sun due to waves of aether being emitted from the nuclear reactions in the core of the sun (see, I identified the source of the energy as the mass to energy conversions in the sun!!!!!!), THEN, it is easy to understand where the energy is coming from. And it is NOT, coming from gravity. Gravity shapes the vortex. Gravity alters the velocities of the winds due to air density gradients around the vortex. But gravity is not the energy source. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 22 19:09:40 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA08018; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 19:07:58 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 19:07:58 -0700 Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 19:09:07 -0700 Message-Id: <199809230209.TAA18557 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: Whirlpower Introduction Resent-Message-ID: <"3ESHC1.0.4z1.zV52s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22642 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > > Einstein said there would be one grand theory that would explain the motion > of > all things, and the reason would be gravity. He worked many years trying to > find and prove his Unified Field Theory without success. What Einstein said was that in a fundamental theory, there should be no mention of particles, and that it should be a field theory. He did not say that gravity would be the reason. And he did not even work with gravity. He worked with spacetime curvature. "Gravity" is only an approximation to the ideas he studied. > > Recent data from the Hubble Telescope as revealed gravitation energy as the > reason for the motion of spiral galaxies. No it has not. Galactic motions do not match our present gravitational theories unless you accept that in the vicinity of the sun (which makes up 99 percent of the mass of all known solar system objects and gases), that the sun is really only 1 to 10 percent of the mass in our vicinity, ie dark matter making up the rest. But, the energy source for those motions is still not "gravity". Gravity is just shaping the motions geometries. Before it was thought to be a > reaction to a great explosion,(the Big Bang). And it still is. If you have some astro physicist who thinks that gravity is the source of the energy that set things in motion, please quote a paper so I can explain to you what they are really saying. Gravity controls the motions of the stars and gases. But they already had the kinetic energy that defines the shapes of the motions. That said, current gravitational theory is incorrect, so this is really beating a dead horse. However, even when the errors are corrected, which won't take too much longer now, gravity still will not be a source of energy in the systems we are discussing. It may be that some new super conductor devices actually do derive energy from the radiation that is incident upon us coming from above, aka ZPE, and when that is accomplished, then I will agree that the ZPE is being used to derive energy, AND that the ZPE is what is responsible for the component of gravitation you are aware of (ie, you are not aware of the cosmological constant component of gravitation which is a thrust away from stars). Now it is thought by state of > the > art research scientists that have had access to the Hubble, that there is a > lot > more universe out there that expected. Way past the supposed "background > radiation" of the Big Bang. And Stars older than the calculated age of the > universe itself. Aargh. I have access to Hubble images and data base. I research that stuff. I research cosmology and have maps of the distant galaxies making up the Hubble flow. I read the latest information. And what you just said is WRONG. Please stop making incorrect assertions of facts you have not researched, you are doing a diservice to the other readers who are not cognizant of the real research. First of all, the CBR (cosmic background radiation), forms a veil on our *observable* universe. We cannot see to the limits of the universe. And each day, the distance to which we can see is extended a little further sort of like some stage hand moving the curtain slowly further back on the stage. We have always known that there is more universe out there than we can see, this has always been and always will be the case. Once upon a time, when the universe was very small in comparison to it's size today, the entire universe was opaque. You couldn't have seen anything further away than the distance across a few atoms. All photons simply scattered off of one another and off of the material particles (gamma rays that slam into one another can form positron electron pairs, and then those can annihilate later to emit gamma rays again.) So the entire universe was not transparent like it is today. As it expanded and cooled, the photons became less dense, matter began to clump into helium and a little lithium, and eventually, the universe was cool enough, like the photosphere of the sun, to become transparent. when that occured, then the residual gamma rays and photons began to travel across large distances without being interupted. And since the expansion continued, the amount of space was increasing, and the numbers of collisions were decreasing. At any given location, the light from that veil seemed like it was moving further and further away. And as the universe expanded, the light was being red shifted. Eventually, we could see very far across the universe before we saw the veil. When humans figured this out, they knew how old the universe was from stellar evolution and globular cluster studies and from the Hubble flow parameters. These values gave better and better results, but have always been approximations. But, the values agree better today than ever, at around 12 to 15 billion years in age. >From this information, it was possible to calculate exactly what the tempearature of those red shifted gamma rays ought to be today. And the answer was 2.7 K (I can look that up to be certain if anyone cares). So that corresponds to a black body temperature with peak radiation in the microwave frequency band. So, physicists were trying to rig up an antenna to look for that radiation to prove or disprove the big bang theory. Bell laboratory scientists beat them to the punch, though, as Wilson and Penzais discovered the CBR. The presence of the CBR is not a mystery at all, it is one of the most conclusive pieces of evidence in favor of the big bang. Second, Stellar age models, and universe age models are models based on our physical theories. Nothing is terribly wrong with the values that are obtained at present. > This and the frame dragging data are at my discussion board. And this is absolutely nuts. You, let me make a wild guess, have absolutely no ability to calculate the amplitude of the frame dragging effect of a hurricane. You have read about frame dragging around a black hole or a neutron star, and you think that this is going to be of an amplitude that would be important in your hurricane or whirlpool. This is nuts. To harness energy from a thing that is in motion without touching it is the dream of every PM designer. Unfortunately, if you touch it, it will change it's state of motion. And if you don't touch it, you won't derive energy. "Tough" being used to mean any means of connection, be it force field, spacetime curvature, or whatever. Action, begets reaction, always. There is no exception to that rule (counter to QM which is ignorant of the affect on the quantum vacuum of the emission of mass in fusion reactions) Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 22 19:09:49 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA07944; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 19:07:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 19:07:48 -0700 Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 19:09:05 -0700 Message-Id: <199809230209.TAA18551 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: Bouyancy Question Resent-Message-ID: <"Mt__r3.0.0y1.pV52s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22641 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >He states all motion is heat related as far as I can see from his argument, and >is standard thermodynamics. Temperature, is the mean kinetic energy of the particles of the material being measured. For an ice cube, the temperature can be say, 20 F, frozen. Put a thermometer on it, it reads, 20 F. That means that the mean velocity of the particles in the cube are such that the kinetic energy is equal to what we know as, 20 F. Take the ice cube, throw it at the earth at 10,000 km/s. When it hits the atmosphere, all of a sudden the molecules ionize and are at extremely high temperatures, why? Answer, because the mean velocity now corresponds to a very much larger mean kinetic energy. And by definition, that means that the temperature is now very large. The trick is, relative to what? Answer, the ice cube is at 20 F relative to itself. It is at thousands of degrees relative to the earth. Temperature and velocity are related in this manner. we just don't normally think about the fact that the temperature of an object is due to real motions of the atoms in that object. We think of the object as stationary, which is incorrect. >But directly to the question of the barrel going up from deep underwater where >the Sun does not shine and the heat from the Sun does not penetrate we still see >the motion of the the barrel going up. Take a 3 foot length of pipe. Fill it with lead shot. Turn the pipe over and set it onto a table so that the lead shot falls 3 feet each time you turn the thing over (ie do it quickly). Do that about a hundred times. Measure the temperature of the shot before and after. You will find that after it is hotter. You deposited energy into the shot and so it got wamer, but where did the energy come from, gravity? No. It came from your body which expended the chemical energy in order to actuate your arms to do the work. Where did that come from? The food you ate. Your body broke down the chemicals in the food via what doctors call metabolism. just different chemicals with less internal energy, and so your body got to use that energy. Where did that energy come from? The sun that shone on the plants via photosynthesis (or the animals that ate the plants). So, did gravity heat the lead shot? No. The sun provided the original source of energy. All gravity did was to act on the shot after you raised the potential energy. The source of energy was from the chemical reactions in your body, not from the force field known as gravity. As for your barrel, the water flowing around it generates motion in the water molecules. Motion in the water molecules has some finite non zero velocity. An increase in velocity is by definition an increase in temperature, it is just more kinetic energy. So as the barrel moves through the water, as a car moves through the air, as your hand moves through the air, they all increase the temperature of the fluid due to viscosity, which is sort of the same thing as friction from rubbing your hands. You may be fooled into thinking that waving your hands cools the air, because you are feeling the evaporation of water molecules, which cools your hand. But the net work expended does in fact heat the air just as certainly as the net work in the lead shot experiment heats the lead. Try it. > >I see the barrel going up because gravity is pulling the more dense water >beneath the barrel and pushing it to the surface. I do not see any heat energy >being used for this motion. I do not think this motion would exist without the >force of gravity. Correct, correct, correct. You are missing the point entirely. The motion in this case would not exist without gravity. But that does NOT mean that gravity is a source of energy, it isn't in this instance. Allowing the barrel to fall downward releases gravitational potential energy, yes. But that energy was put into the barrel by the machine that did the lifting (maybe you are the machine in this case if you do the lifting and burn chemical fuels to produce the energy to lift it). And as for not seeing any heat energy being lost in the motion of the barrel, that is just because you do not understand that viscous damping of the motion IS a loss of energy. And that loss of energy appears as HEAT. Your car brakes itself by dumping the kinetic energy of the car into the brakes. The brakes dump that energy by getting hot and by conducting and convecting that heat to the air. That is how your car stops, ultimately, by dumping heat into the air! If your brakes did not lose heat to the air they would melt after one or two stops. > >Anybody got a non standard explaination for this gravity energy? Learn the standard explanation first, and then look for non standard ones. You cannot even grasp whether something is or is not non standard yet because you haven't studied the standard ideas. I don't mean to put too much of a damper on enthusiasm, that isn't the point. But you need to study some fundamental physics before you will be able to understand what is wrong with what you are saying so that you can stand a chance of developing something usefull. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 22 19:11:24 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA08555; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 19:09:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 19:09:00 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 21:19:07 -0600 To: From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: AN INTERESTING LETTER... Resent-Message-ID: <"y6u2m3.0.J52.xW52s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22643 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Evan posted a letter from DoE mentioning favorably ZPE as a potential energy >source, worthy of study, and some patents on extraction. > > > >He then says: > >>The "ZPE" is actually the Gyroscopic Massergy about which Joseph Newman has >>written for over 30 years. >> >>Sincerely, >> >>Evan Soule' >-------------------- >Evan, this isn't quite fair. The intellectual concepts used by the physics >establishment to describe and discuss ZPE do not fit the language or >structure which Joe has adamantly insisted on for these 30 years. I think it >very unlikely that the inventors involved walked from Joe's formulations to >the proposed ZPE devices. This is, of course, and inference; I haven't seen >the patents. > >In a broad sense, Joe is by no means the first to propose an energy-rich >substrate to the Universe, nor to propose models involving spinning >entities. His descriptive language was useful to him, and he distributed >monographs to many institutions. It does not necessarily follow that his >initiatives are specifically related to any subsequent developments. > >There may come a time when Joe's formulations will find a clear relationship >to a generally accepted theory of operational devices, but that time is not >yet. I understand that you are staking a claim of Joe's behalf. > >Mike Carrell Dear Mike, The statement: >>The "ZPE" is actually the Gyroscopic Massergy about which Joseph Newman has >>written for over 30 years.... ....is a truthful statement: "ZPE" is one manifestation of the Gyroscopic Massergy AND Joseph Newman has written about the Gyroscopic Massergy for over 30 years. I am speaking of an understanding of the essence of the "phenomena" --- not exclusively the language. Joe expresses the phenomena in _mechanical_ terminology relative to his Mechanical Model. And the important aspect of this phenomena is its "GYROSCOPIC" SPIN. If anyone can provide an earlier fundamental, explicit, and _mechanical_ explanation for Fleming's Rule and Magnetic Attraction & Repulsion, then I would be interested in learning it. Sincerely, Evan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 22 19:56:12 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA25795; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 19:53:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 19:53:55 -0700 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980922175339.00cf58f0 popd.ix.netcom.com> X-Sender: atech popd.ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:53:39 -0700 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Dennis C. Lee" Subject: Re: Correcting Mr. NatSpeak Resent-Message-ID: <"Vnt7q3.0.sI6.2B62s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22644 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Jed and all; There's an active noise cancelling microphone produced by Andrea Electronics which is reported to improve the accuracy of voice recognition. http://www.andreaelectronics.com/cgi-bin/commerce/ItemMain.ihtml?search=true &info=&product=Products+and+Accessories The anc microphone is also packaged with a free version of Kurzweil's VoiceSolutions software! I hope my last message was OK with you folks. Sometimes I spread it on a little too thick. Sorry if I offended or frightened anyone. (Gee, I opened my big mouth and it looks like somebody left...I hate when that happens) :( Best Regards; Dennis :) At 06:29 PM 9/22/98 -0400, you wrote: >To: Vortex > >Oops. The Storms paper extract should say: "Calibration was done using the >electrolytic method," not "electronic message." > >That's the problem with this thing. It makes mistakes and you overlook them. >Maybe when I get used to it I will spot them more readily. Maybe this is an >advantage: I can blame my mistakes on the Voice Input software. In the future, >children will say "NatSpeak messed up my report" instead of "the dog ate my >homework." > >- Jed > > > Tall Ships http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 22 20:10:15 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA31569; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 20:08:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 20:08:40 -0700 Message-ID: <360861AA.8C220A30 gte.net> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 19:49:18 -0700 From: Bob Horst X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Minn Kota and Newman References: <199809230032.TAA28574 smtp.jump.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Fu7GA2.0.Aj7.tO62s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22645 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mitchell Jones wrote: > ***{Newman is apparently circulating a video in which he tests a 58 lb > thrust Minn Kota motor. What he basically does, according to a description > I have seen, is drive a small boat around a circular course at full > throttle while measuring elapsed time, voltage, and current. The Minn Kota > draws the electrical equivalent of .5 horsepower (373 watts). Assuming Joe > was using a 12 volt battery, that means the motor was pulling about 31 > amps. He then goes around the same course at full throttle using a 3 HP > gasoline motor, and takes the same amount of time, as measured by a clock > with a 10 inch face that is oriented toward the camera. Joe's inference is > apparently that the 1/2 horse Minn Kota motor with 58 lbs of thrust is as > powerful as a 3 HP gasoline motor. (Another possibility would be that the > drive system of the gasoline motor is inefficient at full throttle.) > Yes, there could be differences in the drive system, or many other conventional reasons. The gasoline motor certainly has more waste heat, it may not have been running at full throttle, wrong fuel mixture, small or damaged propeller, ... So far, we have seen precision output energy measurement by cruising around a lake, and by precisely calibrated grabbing of a drive shaft with a leather glove. And we have seen input measurement by collecting dead batteries and by eyeballing a DC current measurement of a non constant input current. And every chance for someone to do a real measurement has the unit mysteriously malfunction, disappear from the market, or torn down for parts. This is so ridiculous that I will stop wasting Vortex bandwidth discussing it. -- Bob From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 22 23:00:04 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA25271; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 22:58:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 22:58:47 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:00:35 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Subject: Re: [ON/OFF TOPIC] More NatSpeak samples In-Reply-To: <199809221744_MC2-5A3F-118C compuserve.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"bodWB3.0.nA6.Mu82s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22646 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, Jed Rothwell wrote: This voice input program Naturally/Speaking has a training feature where you {snip all the good stuff} -------------------------- Hi Jed, Great program (will look for it) (great paper to decipher will try to finish the read of it) I've noted that Bill B's science page also is compatable for the Blind, this looks like a -next- step! Always stay 'young heart' and fight the battles that NEED to be won. Leave the others to the younger bloods out there :) -=se=- steve ( soon, we *WILL* have dick tracey watches! :) ekwall they say whirlpower vs whirlpool & i think of ester williams swimming pools (sigh:)! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 23 00:22:42 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA10305; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:19:45 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:19:45 -0700 Message-ID: <19980923072036.23730.qmail hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [194.73.204.24] From: "Rob King" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Meyer fuel cell Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:20:36 PDT Resent-Message-ID: <"t1FZg1.0.wW2.G4A2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22647 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Vorts, Thanks for the feedback on the bouyancy question. Pressure at a given depth is equal to the weight of a column of water with the same cross sectional area. (I think) I guess there is no overall net gain here because of the large amount of work required to lift that large column of water up to provide the initial volumn of compressed air. Anyway, I'm working on the Meyer fuel cell at the moment. If I can get it working, can it be of use to the rest of the world as a source of energy, because of the patents that Meyer's estate own would prevent this from happening. (water water everywhere and not a WFC cell to see) Rob King ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 23 03:41:40 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA07292; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 03:41:02 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 03:41:02 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199809230209.TAA18551 Au.oro.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:39:52 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Bouyancy Question Resent-Message-ID: <"o1p3y1.0.mn1.z0D2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22648 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Ross - > But you need to study some fundamental physics > before you will be able to understand what is wrong > with what you are saying so that you can stand a > chance of developing something usefull. * 90% of underwater work is done at 10 ft. or less. These discussions of buoyancy, displacement and energy remind me of a device I've always wanted to develop: a 'snorkel' that would work to a depth of about 10 feet or so. I don't know if that's "developing something usefull"... The gizmo would try to keep a roughly constant volume of air at depth while exchanging exhaust for fresh from the surface. Could never quite figure out a machine capable of doing this across different depths while being simple enough to be mechanically efficient, robust, and cheap. Thinking accumulators and variably leveraged actuators, something like that. It seems like it ought to be a simple problem with a simple device arising from the solution, but it's devilish - the force curves for an air pump (compression) and an air motor (expansion) don't match. The 'concept' version of my idea is this: do the work initially of submerging a balloon of fresh air to 10 ft. Breathe it in. Exhale back into the balloon. Now use the energy in its buoyancy (it's hooked to a halyard to the surface, I suppose) to bring an identical balloon of fresh air down from the surface. Repeat until bored. There is, or was, a lame-o device kind of along these lines which uses ropes between a backpack or belt and a diver's legs to drive air pumps as he swims. Well deserved bad reviews by the diving industry. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 23 05:28:35 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA11072; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 05:27:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 05:27:15 -0700 Message-ID: <19980923122805.29983.qmail hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [194.73.204.24] From: "Rob King" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bouyancy Question Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 05:28:04 PDT Resent-Message-ID: <"iZXpG.0.hi2.YaE2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22649 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi, Yes, I've thought about this before too. You go on holiday, want to go snokelling, BUT be down on the bottom without the hassle of tanks. Hmmmm...try holding your breath but by the time you get down there you only have about 5-10 seconds swimming around with the compression effect reducing the volumn in your lungs. What about a solar powered pump fixed to a lightweight float on the surface with a hose dropping the compressed air to the diver. You could work some pressure/work exchange so that the pump work is reduced. Ideally you could do with a couple of pop bottles of air on your back that you could breath from and then recycle the air some how. OR....use Stan Meyer fuel cell to split the sea water in oxygen & hydrogen. The compression would be automatic. Just need a whopping battery and a method of separating the hydrogen. God help anyone on the surface who starts playing with matches. :( Rob King > * 90% of underwater work is done at 10 ft. or less. > >These discussions of buoyancy, displacement and energy remind me of a >device I've always wanted to develop: a 'snorkel' that would work to a >depth of about 10 feet or so. I don't know if that's "developing something >usefull"... > >The gizmo would try to keep a roughly constant volume of air at depth while >exchanging exhaust for fresh from the surface. Could never quite figure out >a machine capable of doing this across different depths while being simple >enough to be mechanically efficient, robust, and cheap. Thinking >accumulators and variably leveraged actuators, something like that. It >seems like it ought to be a simple problem with a simple device arising >from the solution, but it's devilish - the force curves for an air pump >(compression) and an air motor (expansion) don't match. > >The 'concept' version of my idea is this: do the work initially of >submerging a balloon of fresh air to 10 ft. Breathe it in. Exhale back into >the balloon. Now use the energy in its buoyancy (it's hooked to a halyard >to the surface, I suppose) to bring an identical balloon of fresh air down >from the surface. Repeat until bored. > >There is, or was, a lame-o device kind of along these lines which uses >ropes between a backpack or belt and a diver's legs to drive air pumps as >he swims. Well deserved bad reviews by the diving industry. > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 23 05:59:11 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA21660; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 05:57:14 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 05:57:14 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com ) Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com Message-ID: <3608F048.CC95310E css.mot.com> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 07:57:44 -0500 From: John Steck Organization: Motorola PCS - Rapid Tooling Applications X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [ON/OFF TOPIC] More NatSpeak samples References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"XRt6w1.0.MI5.f0F2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22650 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Steve Ekwall wrote: > I've noted that Bill B's science page also is compatable for the Blind, > this looks like a -next- step! On that note, there has been an idea in one of my lab books for some time now, but I neither have the EE background nor the resources to develop it on my own. I only bring it up and offer it as public domain because I think it has some social merit and some real financial potential. The concept is a tactile computer display to provide access to the web's graphical content to the visually handicaped. Put simply, a micro solenoid array that presents shades of grey in elevation. The display could be made interactive (touch screen) by registering feedback as elevation modifications by the user. A dynamic I/O device for the blind. Imagine the communication potential! I would probably buy one just because it would be fun to use. The idea is free for the taking. I would be more than happy to colaborate, though. Any interest? -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John E. Steck Senior Mechanical Engineer Rapid Tooling Applications Motorola, Libertyville, IL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces, It is not God who kills the children. Not Fate that butchers them or Destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It's us. Only us." - Rorschach From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 23 08:09:13 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA31059; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 08:01:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 08:01:54 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 10:55:42 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: AN INTERESTING LETTER... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"F_h132.0.Ab7.YrG2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22651 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Was there an E mail address on the letter? On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, Evan Soule wrote: > AN INTERESTING LETTER... > > For those who might not have seen this letter..... > > [The following letter was forwarded to my attention. (To respect their > privacy, several names and/or addresses/phone numbers are not included.)] > > > [Letter on stationery with seal of USDOE] > > Department of Energy > Washington, DC 20585 > May 12, 1998 [date stamped] > > Mr. William Thomas > Washington, D.C. 20038 > > Dear Mr. Thomas: > > Let me take this opportunity to thank you for participating in the > Comprehensive National Energy Strategy (CNES) hearings in Washington > [19FEB98]. During your presentation the Secretary committed to a response > to your questions about the Department's investigation of Zero Point Energy > (ZPE). > > Department of Energy scientists and others have investigated zero point > energy sciences and are still in the stage of demonstratintg scientific > feasibility. Thus far, results clearly show that there is a net residual > energy even at the zero absolute temperature, under vacuum conditions. > > A number of technical papers have been published in respected journals > stating that, theoretically, zero point energy can be extracted from > electromagnetic fluctuations of the vacuum. Additionally, eight patents > have been issued on zero point energy, including one issued to the Air > Force Rocket Propulsion Laboratory. > > Presently, scientific feasibility studies are in the beginning stages and > the development of a technology for energy production from ZPE may be > decades away. > > More information about ZPE is attached for your use. I hope this > information and the enclosure are helpful. > > Sincerely, > Robert W. Gee > Assistant Secretary > Office of Policy and International Affairs > > ___________________________________________________ > > > Personally, I find the above letter significant. For more than 30 years, > Joseph Newman has sent the Department of Energy (and/or related Federal > agencies) information about his discoveries concerning a new source of > energy: the proper harnessing of the Gyroscopic Massergy's kinetic energy. > Finally, this new source of energy is beginning to be "officially" > recognized by the DOE. > > I also find of great interest the following statement from the above letter: > > "....EIGHT PATENTS HAVE BEEN ISSUED ON ZERO POINT ENERGY, INCLUDING ONE > ISSUED TO THE AIR FORCE ROCKET PROPULSION LABORATORY." > > It would be interesting to read these 8 patents --- especially the one > issued to the Air Force Rocket Propulsion Laboratory. > > The "ZPE" is actually the Gyroscopic Massergy about which Joseph Newman has > written for over 30 years. > > Sincerely, > > Evan Soule' > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 23 08:21:07 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA05719; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 08:15:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 08:15:00 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 11:08:44 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Frame ...Re: Whirlpower Introduction In-Reply-To: <199809230209.TAA18557 Au.oro.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"BBntc3.0.7P1.o1H2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22652 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Vo., From Ross T and Denning... buncha cuts.... 1] I am NOT a good math person.... 2] you DO want to read of the NASA experiments of frame dragging... > > ---------------- > > This and the frame dragging data are at my discussion board. ===== ....ability to calculate the amplitude of the frame dragging effect of a > hurricane. The frame dragging of a hurricane would be very TINY!!! The NASA work found the dragging effect from the !!! Earth!!! to be detectable only with sensitive instruments... ------ PS: I might know a little bit about gravity.... ======== You have read about frame dragging around a black hole or a > neutron star, and you think that this is going to be of an amplitude that > would be important in your hurricane or whirlpool. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 23 08:30:30 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA10442; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 08:25:53 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 08:25:53 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 10:35:46 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: AN INTERESTING LETTER... Resent-Message-ID: <"sZN-p.0.3Z2.0CH2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22653 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: No there was not. There was an address in the letter for Mr. Thomas in Washington, D.C., but out of respect for his privacy, I did not include it. >Was there an E mail address on the letter? > > > >On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, Evan Soule wrote: > >> AN INTERESTING LETTER... >> >> For those who might not have seen this letter..... >> >> [The following letter was forwarded to my attention. (To respect their >> privacy, several names and/or addresses/phone numbers are not included.)] >> >> >> [Letter on stationery with seal of USDOE] >> >> Department of Energy >> Washington, DC 20585 >> May 12, 1998 [date stamped] >> >> Mr. William Thomas >> Washington, D.C. 20038 >> >> Dear Mr. Thomas: >> >> Let me take this opportunity to thank you for participating in the >> Comprehensive National Energy Strategy (CNES) hearings in Washington >> [19FEB98]. During your presentation the Secretary committed to a response >> to your questions about the Department's investigation of Zero Point Energy >> (ZPE). >> >> Department of Energy scientists and others have investigated zero point >> energy sciences and are still in the stage of demonstratintg scientific >> feasibility. Thus far, results clearly show that there is a net residual >> energy even at the zero absolute temperature, under vacuum conditions. >> >> A number of technical papers have been published in respected journals >> stating that, theoretically, zero point energy can be extracted from >> electromagnetic fluctuations of the vacuum. Additionally, eight patents >> have been issued on zero point energy, including one issued to the Air >> Force Rocket Propulsion Laboratory. >> >> Presently, scientific feasibility studies are in the beginning stages and >> the development of a technology for energy production from ZPE may be >> decades away. >> >> More information about ZPE is attached for your use. I hope this >> information and the enclosure are helpful. >> >> Sincerely, >> Robert W. Gee >> Assistant Secretary >> Office of Policy and International Affairs >> >> ___________________________________________________ >> >> >> Personally, I find the above letter significant. For more than 30 years, >> Joseph Newman has sent the Department of Energy (and/or related Federal >> agencies) information about his discoveries concerning a new source of >> energy: the proper harnessing of the Gyroscopic Massergy's kinetic energy. >> Finally, this new source of energy is beginning to be "officially" >> recognized by the DOE. >> >> I also find of great interest the following statement from the above letter: >> >> "....EIGHT PATENTS HAVE BEEN ISSUED ON ZERO POINT ENERGY, INCLUDING ONE >> ISSUED TO THE AIR FORCE ROCKET PROPULSION LABORATORY." >> >> It would be interesting to read these 8 patents --- especially the one >> issued to the Air Force Rocket Propulsion Laboratory. >> >> The "ZPE" is actually the Gyroscopic Massergy about which Joseph Newman has >> written for over 30 years. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Evan Soule' >> >> >> From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 23 09:19:24 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA03434; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 09:16:56 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 09:16:56 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 09:17:59 -0700 Message-Id: <199809231617.JAA06201 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: Frame ...Re: Whirlpower Introduction Resent-Message-ID: <"Vcrpy3.0.Xr.sxH2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22655 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > 1] I am NOT a good math person.... > 2] you DO want to read of the NASA experiments of frame dragging... NASA has not established fram dragging on the earth as of yet. Gravity Probe B is designed to test that notion, and it has not flown yet. We have made calculations of the magnitude of the frame dragging effect, and it is believed to accumulate a radically tiny amount of displacement to an ultra precision crystal ball like gyroscope over a year or so. The entire earth, to alter the rotation of a tiny gyroscope a tiny amount, that is the amount of frame dragging the earth is able to muster up. So you can imagine how much tinier the frame dragging effect of a hurricane would be. The mass ratio is huge, ergo, the effect commensurately smaller than that which would alter the rotation of that little gyro. > > >> ---------------- >> > This and the frame dragging data are at my discussion board. >===== >....ability to calculate the amplitude of the frame dragging effect of a >> hurricane. > > > The frame dragging of a hurricane would be very TINY!!! > The NASA work found the dragging effect from the !!! Earth!!! to >be detectable only with sensitive instruments... But it has still not been detected. It is that tiny. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 23 09:19:24 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA03390; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 09:16:49 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 09:16:49 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 09:17:56 -0700 Message-Id: <199809231617.JAA06175 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: Snorkel; Resent-Message-ID: <"lebR93.0.pq.mxH2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22654 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >These discussions of buoyancy, displacement and energy remind me of a >device I've always wanted to develop: a 'snorkel' that would work to a >depth of about 10 feet or so. I don't know if that's "developing something >usefull"... > >The gizmo would try to keep a roughly constant volume of air at depth while >exchanging exhaust for fresh from the surface. Could never quite figure out >a machine capable of doing this across different depths while being simple >enough to be mechanically efficient, robust, and cheap. Thinking >accumulators and variably leveraged actuators, something like that. In principle, this could work pretty well with low losses. You exchange the good air for the bad at depth, then drive one balloon up, the other down at the same time. The work ought to be close to reversible on that process, though you probably need one balloon to remain down with the transfer mechanism, and two balloons to shuttle back and forth from the surface. The trick is to make a device to exchange the air, and then another device to drive the balloons through the water, ie, you still have viscous losses in the motion through the water. In the end, I think you are going to confront the reality that a simple gas powered air pump floating on the water, like what we use for gold mining in the rivers, is the least expensive least cumbersome device. It is one thing to conquer the physics of it, and quite another to conquer the manufacturing. ie, given a hundred thousand dollar device, I imagine I could build something that could work. But then the normal solution is far cheaper. There is one trick to the situation that might be exploited. The air expelled by the diver is warmer than the air he breaths in. So there is energy being delivered to the system by the diver. If you could use the differential buoyancy of the warmer air (before it cools back down) to derive useful work (ie, over come the viscous losses), then you could do it. I broke down in "mechanical" thinking when it came to how to empty the balloon and refill it at the top. Though nothing says the thing has to be an enclosed balloon. It could be more like a bucket that is open, and you just keep the open end down while underwater. Gist is, there is a plausible energy source, and viable logical approach. But technically, the amount of work really available is probably going to make the thing need a motor. The minute you need a motor, you are better off just getting a pump. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 23 10:33:43 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA04737; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 10:30:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 10:30:17 -0700 Message-ID: <19980923173244.5665.rocketmail send104.yahoomail.com> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 10:32:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Jerry Wayne Decker Subject: Re: Snorkel; To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"fNJP33.0.r91.f0J2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22656 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Gnorts! Being a scuba diver, I always thought it would be cool to have a backpack type of scuba unit that had a series of osmotic membranes, fed by an electrical pump which would let the diver extract air directly from the water. Much like a fuel cell, water under pressure forced past the membranes might be able to provide breathable gases. Just like the ant farms that live in oxygenated water extracting their air from the osmotic membrane. Don't know what the volume of air gained would be but surely under pressure it would be enough to breathe. ---Ross Tessien wrote: > > > >These discussions of buoyancy, displacement and energy remind me of a > >device I've always wanted to develop: a 'snorkel' that would work to a > >depth of about 10 feet or so. I don't know if that's "developing something > >usefull"... > > In principle, this could work pretty well with low losses. You exchange the > good air for the bad at depth, then drive one balloon up, the other down at > the same time. The work ought to be close to reversible on that process, > though you probably need one balloon to remain down with the transfer > mechanism, and two balloons to shuttle back and forth from the surface. > > The trick is to make a device to exchange the air, and then another device > to drive the balloons through the water, ie, you still have viscous losses > in the motion through the water. > > In the end, I think you are going to confront the reality that a simple gas > powered air pump floating on the water, like what we use for gold mining in > the rivers, is the least expensive least cumbersome device. > > It is one thing to conquer the physics of it, and quite another to conquer > the manufacturing. ie, given a hundred thousand dollar device, I imagine I > could build something that could work. But then the normal solution is far > cheaper. > > There is one trick to the situation that might be exploited. The air > expelled by the diver is warmer than the air he breaths in. So there is > energy being delivered to the system by the diver. > > If you could use the differential buoyancy of the warmer air (before it > cools back down) to derive useful work (ie, over come the viscous losses), > then you could do it. I broke down in "mechanical" thinking when it came to > how to empty the balloon and refill it at the top. Though nothing says the > thing has to be an enclosed balloon. It could be more like a bucket that is > open, and you just keep the open end down while underwater. > > Gist is, there is a plausible energy source, and viable logical approach. > But technically, the amount of work really available is probably going to > make the thing need a motor. The minute you need a motor, you are better > off just getting a pump. > > Ross Tessien > > > > > _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 23 12:35:17 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA22852; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 12:31:57 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 12:31:57 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980923153221.008234a0 inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney inforamp.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 15:32:21 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: Snorkel; In-Reply-To: <199809231617.JAA06175 Au.oro.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"jS24H1.0.za5.ioK2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22657 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 09:17 AM 09/23/98 -0700, you wrote: > The minute you need a motor, you are better >off just getting a pump. > 80% of a surface pump energy requirements are required for continuously pumping nitrogen gas to the diver's pressure level; only 19% for Oxygen. So ... For freedom of movement, I like the idea of using membranes. For energy efficiency, I would also like to see "scrubbers" for the recycling of expelled carbon dioxide. A combination of the two processes would allow partial absorption and partial recycling of the gases at the diver's pressure level. Hopefully, the dual process is more efficient than either one alone, otherwise the added complexity is redundant. Is it possible to use osmotic membranes to efficiently extract oxygen from water (directly), or can membranes only be used for the extraction of the dissolved air? I understand that all of these membrane systems take up space, cost money, and require pressure -- and therefore pumps, [and power] to operate. Watt-hours vss oxygen efficiency, delivered to the diver at depth, is the goal. All of this will be an economic/engineering/efficiency/design trade-off. Like Ross says, maybe I'm better off just getting the pump. Colin Quinney From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 23 15:28:33 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA04904; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 15:26:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 15:26:48 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19980923122805.29983.qmail hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 12:25:37 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Bouyancy Question Resent-Message-ID: <"2Nwe73.0.SC1.dMN2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22658 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Rob - > You could work some pressure/work exchange > so that the pump work is reduced. That's what I was after. Solar, batteries, engines, fancy bearings and so forth are not what I wanted. I wanted something robust, simple, and mostly made of plastic & rubber so it's lightweight and can be thrown in the locker or storage bay without rinsing much like an ordinary mask and snorkle. Something that wouldn't easily be fouled by sand, silt, or minor corrosion around metal fasteners, etc., and is instantly ready for use when it's time to jump in the water with a greenie to clean the bottom of your boat or pool. A simple air driven motor driving a simple air pump is the basic idea. Implementing that to the above criteria proved too difficult for me. But I bet someone figures it out eventually. I think it's a good, marketable invention waiting to be 'discovered'. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 23 15:57:58 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA13507; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 15:47:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 15:47:28 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 18:43:42 -0400 From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Meyer fuel cell Sender: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" Message-ID: <199809231847_MC2-5A7E-10AE compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"5DfpB3.0.yI3.0gN2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22660 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Rob, >> Anyway, I'm working on the Meyer fuel cell at the moment. If I can get it working, << B..rother - if you can get it working your due for a Nobel just for that! Good luck. Norman From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 23 16:01:39 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA13424; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 15:47:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 15:47:07 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199809231617.JAA06175 Au.oro.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 12:45:36 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Snorkel; Resent-Message-ID: <"KsVFd.0.aH3.gfN2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22659 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Ross - > The trick is to make a device to exchange > the air, and then another device to drive the > balloons through the water, ie, you still > have viscous losses in the motion through > the water. I did mention that the balloon thing was just to illuminate the concept in case anyone thought I was trying to either create free energy or directly suck air down a tube from 10' deep. Not at all suggested as an actual device. The practical device would be something based on either a backpack of accumulators/pumps, or similar gear on a float on the surface with just a regulator of sorts down below. Probably have accumulators below, come to think of it, because one likely necessary component would be a manual pump to add energy (pump air from the surface) when needed, either while descending to depth or if you clear your mask or cough or something and waste air (energy) by blowing bubbles. I assume that there is a severe KISS factor necessary here, or else the whole thing becomes complicated - therefore expensive and/or not so robust, which defeats the whole *niche* purpose. After all there is SCUBA and surface pumps like the Brownie engine powered pump, etc. It's not just a matter of how can this be done, but very much of how can it be done cheaply, simply, and resulting in a durable, robust gizmo that would work properly and sell well. Any comments anyone might want to throw at this would be appreciated, but maybe better via e-mail, as this has veered pretty far off topic. Maybe use some sort of Vortex pump? ;) - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 23 17:52:54 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA07256; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 17:51:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 17:51:21 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 17:51:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809240051.RAA26879 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Aqualung Resent-Message-ID: <"hZpvT1.0.km1.8UP2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22661 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: My next post will address the hurricane and frame dragging but first a word on the snorkel. This invention is one I have worked on also and have a lot of wonderful art but as yet, no prototype. I am a poor and unknown inventor for the most part and even though I have been granted two patents I have never made it to market, yet. I call my snorkel Aqualung after the first scuba equipment. It is ultra simple. The purpose is not for depth, but for underwater enjoyment, and real life saving potential. Aqualung is simple. I hope any who read this will remember where they heard it, but I do not count on it. This is a very minor invention of mine and I can risk losing it. But I hope some of you will find it interesting and possibly help get it going and remember me on the way. In the life jacket, life preserver arena, there is not something that will really do the job unless you are strong and the time of exposure is brief. And you are likely to swallow a lot of water. Aqualung is a devise you can jump in the water and breath, and see, and float, without even knowing how to swim. It is made with a live preserver, the standard donut shaped kind, connected to two breathing tubes, one for intake, one for exhale. These connect to a full face mask and head gear that completely fits over the head kinda of like wetsuit headgear with a built in facemask. There are one way valves that allows for air intake/exhale. And a weight belt. You put the unit on, put on the weight belt, and jump in. The air tubes are not long, maybe just a foot or two longer than a standard snorkel. Definately not ten feet. By breathing in one tube and out the other I believe the tube length can be stretched past normal snorkel length but only a little. So there you are, suspended beneath the live preserver, breathing without a pump, looking around, and don't even have to know how to swim! But you can swim around underwater, come up to the surface, back down and never get a mouthful of water. This devise would save many lives if they were standard on all vessels. You could even take a nap underwater. I have about 30 more inventions, most I will not give away in this manner but you might hear a few more before this is all over. I hope someone will recognize my work one day and help me out. David Dennard From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 23 18:28:41 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA23324; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 18:26:45 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 18:26:45 -0700 Message-ID: <360AAB06.DAFE96C0 ihug.co.nz> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 13:26:46 -0700 From: John Berry X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Snorkel; References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"8J-oD2.0.yh5.J_P2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22662 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Why don't you just use two weighted tubes one for air in and the other for air out with a valve so you don't have to re-breath the air (as you can't push it up so many feet each breath so you keep breathing the same air) , It would be weighted so the tube had neutral buoyancy, Other ideas would be a snorkel with a u bend on the end so you can go under water with it but water not go in it (just as a submarine can have a hole on it's bottom) maybe some cheese cloth or anything else that would resist water but not air, further you could add a bag of air so you could breath in and out and stay down for an extended period of time. Though this could be added to a snorkel (only making it easier to go down not really stay down) the tube idea would have to be used to stay down as long as you wanted, it looks rather easy to try really, two garden hoses with valves weighted down, a bunch of coke bottles filled with with to keep the feed end above sea level, you could further add a thing to wind up excess extended tube as needed depending on how often there would be excess slack (changing depth a lot) and if there were and obstructions for it to be caught in then a mechanisms to wind up slack would be a very good idea. John Berry Rick Monteverde wrote: > Ross - > > > The trick is to make a device to exchange > > the air, and then another device to drive the > > balloons through the water, ie, you still > > have viscous losses in the motion through > > the water. > > I did mention that the balloon thing was just to illuminate the concept in > case anyone thought I was trying to either create free energy or directly > suck air down a tube from 10' deep. Not at all suggested as an actual > device. > > The practical device would be something based on either a backpack of > accumulators/pumps, or similar gear on a float on the surface with just a > regulator of sorts down below. Probably have accumulators below, come to > think of it, because one likely necessary component would be a manual pump > to add energy (pump air from the surface) when needed, either while > descending to depth or if you clear your mask or cough or something and > waste air (energy) by blowing bubbles. I assume that there is a severe KISS > factor necessary here, or else the whole thing becomes complicated - > therefore expensive and/or not so robust, which defeats the whole *niche* > purpose. After all there is SCUBA and surface pumps like the Brownie engine > powered pump, etc. It's not just a matter of how can this be done, but very > much of how can it be done cheaply, simply, and resulting in a durable, > robust gizmo that would work properly and sell well. > > Any comments anyone might want to throw at this would be appreciated, but > maybe better via e-mail, as this has veered pretty far off topic. > > Maybe use some sort of Vortex pump? ;) > > - Rick Monteverde > Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 23 18:39:43 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA28489; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 18:37:57 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 18:37:57 -0700 Message-ID: <360AADB3.EA3F3C32 ihug.co.nz> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 13:38:12 -0700 From: John Berry X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Snorkel; References: <360AAB06.DAFE96C0@ihug.co.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"mCfy82.0._y6.q9Q2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22663 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Second thought you don't need any winding mechanism as long as it has a slight buoyancy (so all excess rises to the top and out of the way of obstructions, further more a somewhat more flexible tube could be found other than garden hose of course), I also just started to read an email by David Dennard who seems to have a somewhat similar idea. John Berry wrote: > Why don't you just use two weighted tubes one for air in and the other for air > out with a valve so you don't have to re-breath the air (as you can't push it > up so many feet each breath so you keep breathing the same air) , It would be > weighted so the tube had neutral buoyancy, Other ideas would be a snorkel with > a u bend on the end so you can go under water with it but water not go in it > (just as a submarine can have a hole on it's bottom) maybe some cheese cloth or > anything else that would resist water but not air, further you could add a bag > of air so you could breath in and out and stay down for an extended period of > time. > Though this could be added to a snorkel (only making it easier to go down not > really stay down) the tube idea would have to be used to stay down as long as > you wanted, it looks rather easy to try really, two garden hoses with valves > weighted down, a bunch of coke bottles filled with with to keep the feed end > above sea level, you could further add a thing to wind up excess extended tube > as needed depending on how often there would be excess slack (changing depth a > lot) and if there were and obstructions for it to be caught in then a > mechanisms to wind up slack would be a very good idea. > > John Berry > > Rick Monteverde wrote: > > > Ross - > > > > > The trick is to make a device to exchange > > > the air, and then another device to drive the > > > balloons through the water, ie, you still > > > have viscous losses in the motion through > > > the water. > > > > I did mention that the balloon thing was just to illuminate the concept in > > case anyone thought I was trying to either create free energy or directly > > suck air down a tube from 10' deep. Not at all suggested as an actual > > device. > > > > The practical device would be something based on either a backpack of > > accumulators/pumps, or similar gear on a float on the surface with just a > > regulator of sorts down below. Probably have accumulators below, come to > > think of it, because one likely necessary component would be a manual pump > > to add energy (pump air from the surface) when needed, either while > > descending to depth or if you clear your mask or cough or something and > > waste air (energy) by blowing bubbles. I assume that there is a severe KISS > > factor necessary here, or else the whole thing becomes complicated - > > therefore expensive and/or not so robust, which defeats the whole *niche* > > purpose. After all there is SCUBA and surface pumps like the Brownie engine > > powered pump, etc. It's not just a matter of how can this be done, but very > > much of how can it be done cheaply, simply, and resulting in a durable, > > robust gizmo that would work properly and sell well. > > > > Any comments anyone might want to throw at this would be appreciated, but > > maybe better via e-mail, as this has veered pretty far off topic. > > > > Maybe use some sort of Vortex pump? ;) > > > > - Rick Monteverde > > Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 23 19:15:53 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA10213; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 19:14:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 19:14:28 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 19:15:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809240215.TAA01162 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Whirlpower Theory Resent-Message-ID: <"Wr4Lf.0.8V2.3iQ2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22664 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I am going to try and explain frame dragging and the hurricane and how they relate to Whirlpower Theory. I am glad to finally be amoung those that are fully versed on these matters. I know what I am saying may not be exactly what you understand about the subject matter but since the subject matter is not understood by the conventional approach I hope my approach will at least serve the purpose of further understanding and possible provide the answer to the mystery. When Austrian Physicists Hans and Thirring proposed frame dragging way back in 1918 they had not way to prove it. Last Nov. it was finally proven. And since there have been reports of frame dragging on our satellites. But that is just the tip of the iceberg, in my opinion. The Earth is also frame dragging the Moon. Why this isn't seen or reported I don't know but it is quite evident. The Moon is receeding away from the Earth. And it used to go around the Earth more times per year. And it is speeding up. Strange combination of events. Speeding up, yet not going around as many times per year then before. This is because of the recession. It may not be going around as many times per year but since the diameter of the orbit is constantly increasing the distance traveled on every revolution is greater. This percentage is very small but on the astronomical scale it is a large distance. So really, the Moon is feeding off the Earth. The gravity of the Earth is speeding up the Moon, not is revolutions per year but in distance traveled. This gravitational energy is not pulling the moon in as one might expect from gravity but increasing its velocity making it move away. This whip effect is not unknown to science, we used it in our moon shots. Why it is not recognized as the reason for the motion of the Moon is hard for me to understand. But that is not the entire story. The Sun is frame dragging the Earth. The Sun wobbles. Any spinning object wobbles be it ever so great or small. This wobble frame drags the Earth and all the Planets. But where does the gravity that wobbles the Sun come from? Other Stars. Just like the wobble of the Black Hole comes from other Black Holes and Stars, although the gravity from other Stars is a smaller part of the equation. This Unified Field Theory show gravity is causing every spinning thing in the universe to wobble. Vera Rubin has found the connection in her study of spiral galaxies although she does not know where it is coming from and she states that emphatically. She does state however there is something happening that shows we don't see 90% of what is going on. With this high a figure I think it would be wise to look into Whirlpower as a possible explanation. Interestingly enough the 90% figure show up in Whirlpower Theory. If you have been to the Whirlpower page you see two systems at work. One system is the water passing through the vortex and feedback loops. The other is in the donut and is not passing throught the vortex and feedback loops. The speed of the water in both systems is not exactly but very near the same but the mass in the donut is 90% of the mass of the entire system. Coincidence? I don't think so. Now on to the hurricane, since we have one to watch at the present time I want you all to look for something. It spiritual terms it is called the Tao. I know you all know what the symblom of the Tao looks like. You can see this symbol in the hurricane. The two swimming fish go round and round. In the hurricane the eye wall wobbles. This wobble frame drags the bulk of the hurricane. You can see the acceleration midway between the eye and the outer edge. It appears as an accelerated woosh. It is also measused in the northwest quadrent as faster than the speed of the eye wall and is where the major damage is done when it makes land fall. There is a place where the effect of the wobble, which has less revolutions compared to spin revolutions, at a distance actually has a greater velocity than the spin itself. This is seen on any turntable. So actually frame dragging is where a vortex starts to increase velocity away from the vortex like a turntable. This is also seen in Vera Rubin study. It is this fact that really made her question the Big Bang Theory. I don't expect science to embrace this concept right off the bat. But it would not be difficult, relatively speaking, to build a giant whirlpool and test Whirlpower Theory. The proof is in the pudding. I submit this as the recipe. David Dennard P.S. I will address those who already responded next time I get to use this computer. I do not mean to ignore you and I have my reply ready, it is just a matter of access time available to me at the moment. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 23 19:44:04 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA18700; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 19:35:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 19:35:11 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 20:36:58 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bouyancy Question / smorkel - snorkel:) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"DaI-O3.0.5a4.T_Q2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22665 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, Rick Monteverde wrote: Ross - > But you need to study some fundamental physics > before you will be able to understand what is wrong > with what you are saying so that you can stand a > chance of developing something usefull. * 90% of underwater work is done at 10 ft. or less. ----------------------------- rebreathers' versus twin smorkle. :) You guys are after my young-heart attempts of killing myself. As I sit here with a coke-a-cola and a straw, I note that if I keep my finger over the straw's end I can insert it to the bottom with little or no coke entering it (duh:) remove my finger and it will refill to water level. elememtary school with milk too :) In the KISS arena, I should note that 10' depth even a gallon milk jug can give you at least 5 good breaths of air before it 'tastes' hot from carbon-dioxide.. (need new jugs)... I should also note for those that haven't been as stupid as I in trying to solve this problem at 7 years old, that one CAN jump in backwards into a 9' deep pool (with a 10' x 1/2" steel conduit stuck in his mouth )and weighted (or sticking your finger in the drain:) to hold yourself on the bottom. YOU CAN EASILY BREATHE IN & OUT THROUGH this 10' SNORKEL... [TROUBLE] ** WARNING ** the same _problem_ arises however with The distance being too great to expel the CARBON-DIOXIDE that one just EXHALED!. You inhale a 6' stick full it on the next breathe! I don't remember the exact inches from the mavy/dive table, but I think a 17" or 23" "J" snorkle is in trouble of rebreathing lung exhuast. (CO2). Now follow me here, many regulators ARE ALREADY made that allow port breathing, one tube IN and other tube OUT <-- this OUT tube expels the bad-air (CO2). {see: the hose on an acetylene and oxgen torch one GREEN incoming GOOD air and one RED -Outgoing- bad air. Clamped together as a double snorkle as it were. The only trick is the simple valving (heart like diaphram flat valve(?) for simple in-out breathing. If I had a deep enough tub (sigh), I would suggest simple "gardening water hoses" for a 1/2" test diameter (snorkle diameter or better) Pressure surely will come into play at some depth, but you will get sea-level 14.x lbs per square inch Plus 10' fresh air. All exhaled air will harmless go up and out the other pipe (red/hose).. Float and filter/& tilt the upward exhaust hose as required for waves and friends that might "finger you" ! :) Would deep/ deeper depths require multiple inline valves on the input and output side?? Worth checking, as underwater archeaology could use all day under water at atmospheric pressures. just a thought, two smorkles :) -=se=- steve ( carry a pony-bottle of O2 just in case :) ekwall From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 23 19:52:42 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA24166; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 19:51:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 19:51:07 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 19:52:23 -0700 Message-Id: <199809240252.TAA23781 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: Whirlpower Theory Resent-Message-ID: <"zCbE11.0.Ov5.PER2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22666 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: David ; Please at a minimum, answer the questions regarding periods at the end. Everyone; I am sorry for the comments trying to correct David, but he is saying things that just aren't correct and I am trying to get him to speak to things he knows, ie facts, and to avoid bantering about things he thinks, which are in error (ie interpretations of what others are saying). It isn't that he talks about these things, but rather that he is stating these things as facts wondering why physicists don't understand his view, when his view is incorrect to begin with and he doesn't understand the physics of what he has read. I would like to learn about facts about hurricanes that he may have come across. These include periods of rotation, periods of wobble, wind velocities as a function of periods, periods as a function of time of year, probabilities of hurricanes as a function of month of year, etc. ie data. Avoid conclusions where they are not in your field and just present what is known. The above periods are potentially important because it is known that the sun has a number of periods of oscillation. And from my models, I am convinced that those periods should show up in atmospheric disturbances (ie spiral lee vortices, VBrand waves, etc etc ). I can't research everything, so if he has information, lets hear it. Anyway, here are more corrections, followed at the end by some bonified questions. >When Austrian Physicists Hans and Thirring proposed frame dragging way back in >1918 they had not way to prove it. Last Nov. it was finally proven. The Lens Thirring effect is known, and was known to them. Use a glass cylinder and rotate it, shine a leg of an optical interferometer through the glass and the other legs through air, and fringing occurs. they did it. >The Earth is also frame dragging the Moon. Why this isn't seen or reported I >don't know but it is quite evident. The Moon is receeding away from the Earth. This is not frame dragging. This is due to the time response of the tidal bulge of the earth always lagging. Thus, the moon always sees more mass of the earth displaced slightly ahead in it's orbit, and thus it is always accelerated with a small tangential component. Again David, you are spouting things that are not correct and should be more careful. Frame dragging is not involved in that phenomena (correct me if I am wrong and there is a paper on frame dragging being the cause of the moons acceleration, please cite the paper, book, author) >And it used to go around the Earth more times per year. And it is speeding up. The moon isn't speeding up. The acceleration in the tangential direction leads to the moon climbing in orbital radius, and thus slowing down due to gain in gravitational PE. The moons orbit is slowing, not speeding. The radius is increasing. Also, FYI, the solar neutrinos have a ~28 day period, and so are close to frequency lock with the moon. Ergo, aether emission oscillations due to nuclear fusion oscillations may be driving the moons orbital period to some degree, leading to some of the strange libration phenomena. >So really, the Moon is feeding off the Earth. Yes. The period of rotation of the earth is slowing down as the "reaction" to the increase in lunar orbital radius. Simple action reaction. >This whip effect is not unknown to science, we used it in our moon shots. Why >it is not recognized as the reason for the motion of the Moon is hard for me to >understand. But that is not the entire story. Because satelites don't do the same thing. They don't cause the sphere of the earth to distort in shape. The effects are NOT used on our moon shots. You are confusing two completely different phenomena. >The Sun is frame dragging the Earth. The Sun wobbles. Any spinning object >wobbles be it ever so great or small. This wobble frame drags the Earth and all >the Planets. The planets are not dragged by the wobble, they are dragged by the radically tiny frame dragging of the sun due to it's rotation, not it's wobble. The wobble would only generate a net effect if it was in frequency lock with some process, ie rotation, of a planet or the fluids (air) of a planet. Aside from that, wobble does nothing but jitter things around. And that said, the wobble would probably displace the surface of the oceans by about the size of a nucleus of an atom (I actually had to determine this as the distortion of the gravitational waves from binary neutron stars in an attempt to determine the ratio of a different kind of gravitational wave I anticipate from the sun) >This Unified Field Theory show gravity is causing every spinning thing in the >universe to wobble. Vera Rubin has found What paper or book of Vera's are you getting this stuff from? You are really misquoting her on your interpretation of dark matter etc. Please provide quotes directly from people you say are saying things, and not your interpretation of what they are saying because you are not understanding their comments. This wobble frame drags the bulk of the hurricane. You can >see the acceleration midway between the eye and the outer edge. It appears as >an accelerated woosh. It is also measused in the northwest quadrent as faster >than the speed of the eye wall and is where the major damage is done when it >makes land fall. What are the periods of rotation of typical hurricanes? What are the periods of wobble of typical hurricanes? And what ranges do the measured values have, ie, do large hurricanes have typical periods that are different from smaller hurricanes, or do they all have nearly the same periods but with different intensities of winds? Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 23 20:22:22 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA03694; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 20:20:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 20:20:47 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 20:22:05 -0700 Message-Id: <199809240322.UAA27671 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: Hal, ZPE Test, off topic Resent-Message-ID: <"3U_Fb1.0.ev.EgR2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22667 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Greetings Hal and all: I am reading a book, "Graviational Experiments in the Laboratory", Chen and Cook, and studying the work of Long that showed a potential anomaly in the 1/R^2 variability in the gravitational acceleration between two objects. He used a sort of Cavendish style torsion balance but used rings instead of spheres as test masses. Studying the geometry as pertains to a ZPE sheilding mechanism, it occurred to me that an experiment could be set up to test the shielding mechanism that would be easier than the use of mountain ranges (the Sierras run NS) to check for a difference between the gravitational "attraction" of two masses dependent on apparatus orientation along EW vs NS lines (ie, along line of mountains vs normal to them to alter the view factor to deep space, the origin of the "noisy" ZPE inducing the gravitational effect. If instead of a ring or a sphere, the "attracting mass" (replacing Long's rings), was instead in the shape of an I or dumbell with masses on each end, then the following configurations are possible: A) Arrange the masses as follows: O | o c | O This is a small test mass o on the left on a torsion Cavendish style balance, and then the test mass is a dumbell with masses O at top and bottom with the axis along a vertical line. Lines joining o and O will both pass through a large chord of the earth because they are inclined to the horizontal. The three masses define a vertical plane, and c is the center of mass of the dumbell (but no mass is actually there) B) Arrange the masses as follows: o O This is the same apparatus as above, except that here the dumbell with the two test masses labeled O are seen edge on, ie, you are looking down the axis of the dumbell. The distance from the center of mass c (not shown as it is coincident with O) has not changed from the above. To change from configuration A to B, all you do is rotate the dumbell 90 degrees. In this configuration, the lines joining the test masses are tangent to the earths surface, ie, the three masses define a horizontal plane. If gravitation is due to a filtering effect, then in case A the filtering will be important due to the long chord through the earth to filter out ZPE. This is so for both test masses, but you must recognize that the ZPE is filtered in each case from coming up from below, but not from coming down from above. In the second case, B, the apparatus is in the horizontal plane. So except for some mountain ranges in the way of the horizon, any incident deep space ZPE will have a clear view factor to the test masses from all directions joining the masses. To further resonantly amplify the effect, the mass o on the left could be a pendulum (torsion or simple), with a resonant period t. By rotating the dumbell to match the period t, it should be possible to amplify any displacement via resonance of the change in the force. This should produce an extremely sensitive test of this shielding I would think because the rotation does not move the center of mass, and so should have zero effect on the mass o (to the accuracy of the machining symmetry that guarantees that the center of mass is actually on the axis of rotation of the dumbell) Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 23 21:06:39 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA17457; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 20:59:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 20:59:22 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 21:00:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809240400.VAA07229 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Whirlpower Introduction Resent-Message-ID: <"M5wIB1.0.bG4.PES2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22668 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ross, please understand I am not a "scientist", nor was Einstein. > > What Einstein said was that in a fundamental theory, there should be no > mention of particles, and that it should be a field theory. He did not say > that gravity would be the reason. And he did not even work with gravity. > He worked with spacetime curvature. "Gravity" is only an approximation to > the ideas he studied. A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. > > > > > > Recent data from the Hubble Telescope as revealed gravitation energy as the > > > > reason for the motion of spiral galaxies. > > No it has not. Galactic motions do not match our present gravitational > theories unless you accept that in the vicinity of the sun (which makes up > 99 percent of the mass of all known solar system objects and gases), that > the sun is really only 1 to 10 percent of the mass in our vicinity, ie dark > matter making up the rest. Vera Rubin says "mysterious dark matter" is just a theory. > > But, the energy source for those motions is still not "gravity". Gravity is > just shaping the motions geometries. I disagree, respectfully. > > Before it was thought to be a > > reaction to a great explosion,(the Big Bang). > > And it still is. Not by some. Refer to my discussion board (disc.server.com/Indices/10098.html If you have some astro physicist who thinks that gravity > is the source of the energy that set things in motion, please quote a paper > so I can explain to you what they are really saying. Gravity controls the > motions of the stars and gases. But they already had the kinetic energy > that defines the shapes of the motions. That said, current gravitational > theory is incorrect, so this is really beating a dead horse. I think the horse is alive and just about to gallop through town. However, even > when the errors are corrected, which won't take too much longer now, gravity > still will not be a source of energy in the systems we are discussing. It > may be that some new super conductor devices actually do derive energy from > the radiation that is incident upon us coming from above, aka ZPE, and when > that is accomplished, then I will agree that the ZPE is being used to derive > energy, AND that the ZPE is what is responsible for the component of > gravitation you are aware of (ie, you are not aware of the cosmological > constant component of gravitation which is a thrust away from stars). But everyone can see the "times they are a changin". > > Now it is thought by state of > > the > > art research scientists that have had access to the Hubble, that there is a > > > > lot > > more universe out there that expected. Way past the supposed "background > > radiation" of the Big Bang. And Stars older than the calculated age of the > > > > universe itself. > > Aargh. > > I have access to Hubble images and data base. I research that stuff. I > research cosmology and have maps of the distant galaxies making up the > Hubble flow. I read the latest information. And what you just said is > WRONG. Please stop making incorrect assertions of facts you have not > researched, you are doing a diservice to the other readers who are not > cognizant of the real research. What I have stated came out on ABC NEWS. Tell them they are wrong. > > First of all, the CBR (cosmic background radiation), forms a veil on our > *observable* universe. We cannot see to the limits of the universe. And > each day, the distance to which we can see is extended a little further sort > of like some stage hand moving the curtain slowly further back on the stage. > We have always known that there is more universe out there than we can see, > this has always been and always will be the case. > > Once upon a time, when the universe was very small in comparison to it's > size today, the entire universe was opaque. You couldn't have seen anything > further away than the distance across a few atoms. All photons simply > scattered off of one another and off of the material particles (gamma rays > that slam into one another can form positron electron pairs, and then those > can annihilate later to emit gamma rays again.) > > So the entire universe was not transparent like it is today. As it expanded > and cooled, the photons became less dense, matter began to clump into helium > and a little lithium, and eventually, the universe was cool enough, like the > photosphere of the sun, to become transparent. when that occured, then the > residual gamma rays and photons began to travel across large distances > without being interupted. And since the expansion continued, the amount of > space was increasing, and the numbers of collisions were decreasing. > > At any given location, the light from that veil seemed like it was moving > further and further away. And as the universe expanded, the light was being > red shifted. Eventually, we could see very far across the universe before > we saw the veil. When humans figured this out, they knew how old the > universe was from stellar evolution and globular cluster studies and from > the Hubble flow parameters. These values gave better and better results, > but have always been approximations. But, the values agree better today > than ever, at around 12 to 15 billion years in age. > > >From this information, it was possible to calculate exactly what the > tempearature of those red shifted gamma rays ought to be today. And the > answer was 2.7 K (I can look that up to be certain if anyone cares). So > that corresponds to a black body temperature with peak radiation in the > microwave frequency band. > > So, physicists were trying to rig up an antenna to look for that radiation > to prove or disprove the big bang theory. Bell laboratory scientists beat > them to the punch, though, as Wilson and Penzais discovered the CBR. The > presence of the CBR is not a mystery at all, it is one of the most > conclusive pieces of evidence in favor of the big bang. That was before Vera Rubin's study. Now they are saying science is going to have to "give up some of their most precious beliefs". A quote from the ABC NEWS Nightline Science Special. > > Second, Stellar age models, and universe age models are models based on our > physical theories. Nothing is terribly wrong with the values that are > obtained at present. Again I refer you to the transcript posted at my discussion board. since the orininal Unified Field Theory was never proven, science got the notion the motion came from an explosion. And that is all it is, a notion. Much of the science you refer to was made to fit, but the more we learn the more it doesn't fit. > > > > > This and the frame dragging data are at my discussion board. > > And this is absolutely nuts. You, let me make a wild guess, have absolutely > no ability to calculate the amplitude of the frame dragging effect of a > hurricane. You have read about frame dragging around a black hole or a > neutron star, and you think that this is going to be of an amplitude that > would be important in your hurricane or whirlpool. This is nuts. When you point your finger in judgement there are three fingers pointing back at yourself. Repectfully, Sir. > > To harness energy from a thing that is in motion without touching it is the > dream of every PM designer. Unfortunately, if you touch it, it will change > it's state of motion. And if you don't touch it, you won't derive energy. > "Tough" being used to mean any means of connection, be it force field, > spacetime curvature, or whatever. Action, begets reaction, always. There > is no exception to that rule (counter to QM which is ignorant of the affect > on the quantum vacuum of the emission of mass in fusion reactions) A flame is in motion and whatever means of gathering the heat must allow the flame to burn freely. David Dennard P.S. A quick correction on Whirlpower Theory post. That was Lense and Thirring and I think the most powerful quadrent in the hurricane is northeast not northwest, can't remember for sure. I always write my theory from scratch and not just post the same thing again and again. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 23 21:13:07 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA22062; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 21:11:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 21:11:32 -0700 Message-ID: <3609B9BB.4F71 earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 22:17:15 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Storms: Blue: can we find common ground re CF? 9.22.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"W1y7E3.0.cO5.pPS2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22669 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Subject: Re: Storms: results suggestive of CF 9.15.98 Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 22:13:19 -0600 From: Edmund Storms To: rmforall earthlink.net 9/22/98 Dear Rich et al. As Dr. Blue must be aware, I am frantically trying to find some common ground on which to base a discussion. Hopefully, I am doing this with respect and patience. I would like Dick Blue to appreciate why the process is so difficult. I offer several examples of “good” calorimetry, and Dr. Blue rejects them. So I conclude he is not interested in the use of calorimetry to demonstrate the existence of a heat producing reaction not caused by normal chemistry. I offer Miles - Bush, supported by a replication, and he rejects the experimental results and the idea that measured helium can be associated with measured heat without gamma emission. Yet he says he respects “good” experimental work and wants the relationship between heat and a nuclear product to be determined. I conclude from this response that the present efforts do not qualify, even though he apparently does not want to learn what was actually done to obtain these results. It is even more frustrating because many of his present impressions about the experimental conditions are wrong. Because I believe an understanding of experimental results is the first step to an understanding any phenomenon, I started this dialog with a few examples of experimental results which I find impressive. These are rejected for reasons that appear to trivialize the efforts. The problem keeps coming down to Dr. Blue wanting an explanation and a justification before accepting what the advocates of CANR claim the experimental results mean. Of course, we all want this insight, and a significant effort has gone into obtaining such an understanding. It is exceedingly arrogant to assume that such theories do not exist, just because I choose to start first with the experiment results. I suggest Dick Blue read my review in the latest issue of Infinite Energy to obtain a partial background in this theoretical area. One does not need an explanation to recognize that a strange phenomenon has been discovered which demands attention. In contrast, skeptics in general, but perhaps not Dr. Blue, reject all observations as resulting from error or being claimed to have trivial explanations. Consequently, my first intent was to clarify these observations so that rejection, if made, would at least be consistent with the facts. This approach apparently does not work with Dr. Blue because the available experiments are not the ones he wants to see done. Actually, we both would like, as Dr. Blue writes, a well designed experiment intended to test specific hypotheses. A number of such experiments have been suggested but have not been done for several reasons. An additional number of experiments have been done but they have not yet been reproduced. We are still in a transition stage between observation and understanding. My hope is to discuss the possibilities within the boundaries of what is known. With luck, this mutual search for the “truth” might result in some useful approaches. Instead, Dick Blue has strong ideas about what is true or possible, and summarily rejects any other possibilities, generally without taking the trouble to learn what they are. For example, the currently accepted reasons for lack of reproducibility are rejected out of hand as arcane in favor of assuming incompetence on the part of sloppy experimenters, i.e. those who overlook obvious sources of error. This style makes a shared dialogue very difficult. So, Dick Blue wants to discuss theory. Hopefully, we can find some common ground in this area. OK, we agree that anomalous helium is seen without hard radiation, i.e. gamma rays or high-energy X-rays. However, there is an indication of soft radiation, i.e. low-energy X-rays. He asks how can two deuterons come together in a manner to fuse? Clearly, this can not happen in normal beta PdD as was suggested early in the field. The conditions must be rare and difficult to achieve else, as we agree, the nuclear world would be unstable. Two conditions seem to be required: the two nuclei must occupy the same lattice site within the PdD structure (in order to bring them close enough together for a sufficient time); and a condition must exist within the environment which is able to overcome or neutralize the coulomb barrier. This unique condition has been treated in several different ways. The Chubbs have explored a particle-wave transition, Preparata has suggested a coherent electron structure, Hagelstein has focused on sufficient energy being acquired from the phonons to allow the nuclei to tunnel into each other. Other variations on these processes can be discussed. On the other hand, several people have suggested the presence of neutrons in various configurations. These neutrons do not cause fusion but initiate nuclear reactions that produce helium in addition to other claimed nuclear products. This approach has an advantage in that a variety of claimed nuclear reactions can be explained, and the problems raised by assuming simple fusion disappear. I do not understand why Dick Blue say that virtual neutron transfer is the worst sort of bull shit. I hope he is willing to expand on this rather emotional response, because I may agree to a less dramatic and restrictive conclusion. If the proposed reaction is fusion, an additional problem involves the obviously distorted selection rules, as Dick Blue notes. What do we know about the selection rules under these unusual conditions? Experience shows that neutrons are produced, some having 2.45 MeV, as would be expected from “hot” fusion, and some with higher energies. Tritium is produced but seldom during excess energy production (thus it would appear that the chemical environment plays a role in determining which reaction is initiated); and helium is produced with an energy per reaction near 24 MeV, as expected from normal fusion, but without a gamma ray. When the reaction is studied in vacuum, protons and tritons are emitted, as expected from normal fusion. However the ratios and amounts are anomalous. Dick Blue can pick and choose what he wants to believe of this experience. However, if any part of this collection is accepted, clearly very unexpected nuclear reactions can be made to occur in some type of solid environment. Of course, if all is rejected we have nothing to talk about. The most productive approach, from my point of view, is to see if we can make any sense of this collection, while throwing the least amount away. At the outset, we do not need to assume the reaction is fusion. Other reactions can be proposed which result in some of these products. We only need to agree that some type of nuclear reaction is possible under these unusual conditions. Would Dick Blue agree to this statement? If the answer is yes, we can explore the possibilities in a later discussion. Suppose the reactions do not involve fusion. The problem still remains as to how the energy is dissipated. A “normal” nuclear-energy producing reaction observed in a lattice produces many X-rays, as electrons are knocked out of orbit, and sometimes radioactive products. Although some radioactive nuclei have been seen, this is rare. The expected bremsstrahlung is largely absent. Where does the energy go? Here is a possible experiment: to measure the nature of the X-radiation while excess energy is being made. Rich Murray has suggested a way this might be done. We only need to find a sample of palladium able to produce excess energy. Would Dick Blue agree with this approach as one of several? Finally, I do not mean to trivialize the application of known nuclear physics to CANR. I think everyone, believers and skeptics alike, agree that much of CANR violates conventional nuclear theory. The issue is whether this fact alone is enough to allow all of the claims to be rejected. The problem is to apply conventional experience without being backed into having to reject all of the observations. This seems to me the approach Dick Blue is taking. I apologize if this is not the impression Dick Blue means to give. I’m encouraged by the statement - Indeed we know that cold fusion does occur. It is what must result from said fusion that is, however, a subject for debate.- On the other hand, the statement -what must result- gives concern. -What must- based on who’s interpretation? Does a failure to fit mean the observation is rejected rather than the theory? You see the problem I have. I would like to discuss this issue, but only if we are cooperating rather than competing in seeking an answer. Is this possible? If the observations rather than theory are assumed to be wrong, we have two problems: 1. How can so many expert and competent scientists be making such gross errors? This is not a trivial question, and I hope Dr. Blue will not treat it as such. Skeptical people far more skilled than Dr. Blue have examined several studies in detail, and failed to find any significant experimental flaws. If these data are wrong, we are in an awkward position of having to question some basic tools of modern science. 2. We are left with nothing more to discuss. If some of these observations are accepted, then we have one problem: 1. Some part of conventional experience has been misinterpreted, or does not apply to these conditions. Can you think of another possibility? Can we explore this possible deficiency as one solution to the problem? I hope you agree with me in seeking an approach each of us can trust to result in a useful product from this effort. Rather than questioning each other’s motives, or assuming lack of knowledge or competence, I would prefer to treat the debate as being between equals. Is this possible? Regards, Ed Storms From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 23 21:18:40 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA24578; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 21:16:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 21:16:21 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 21:16:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809240416.VAA08028 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bouyancy Question Resent-Message-ID: <"jP7xQ3.0.g_5.IUS2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22670 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ross, thank you for your response, you wrote; > > Temperature, is the mean kinetic energy of the particles of the material > being measured. For an ice cube, the temperature can be say, 20 F, frozen. > Put a thermometer on it, it reads, 20 F. That means that the mean velocity > of the particles in the cube are such that the kinetic energy is equal to > what we know as, 20 F. > > Take the ice cube, throw it at the earth at 10,000 km/s. When it hits the > atmosphere, all of a sudden the molecules ionize and are at extremely high > temperatures, why? Answer, because the mean velocity now corresponds to a > very much larger mean kinetic energy. And by definition, that means that > the temperature is now very large. > > The trick is, relative to what? Answer, the ice cube is at 20 F relative to > itself. It is at thousands of degrees relative to the earth. Temperature > and velocity are related in this manner. we just don't normally think about > the fact that the temperature of an object is due to real motions of the > atoms in that object. We think of the object as stationary, which is > incorrect. > > > >But directly to the question of the barrel going up from deep underwater > where > >the Sun does not shine and the heat from the Sun does not penetrate we > still see > >the motion of the the barrel going up. > > Take a 3 foot length of pipe. Fill it with lead shot. Turn the pipe over > and set it onto a table so that the lead shot falls 3 feet each time you > turn the thing over (ie do it quickly). Do that about a hundred times. > > Measure the temperature of the shot before and after. You will find that > after it is hotter. You deposited energy into the shot and so it got wamer, > but where did the energy come from, gravity? No. It came from your body > which expended the chemical energy in order to actuate your arms to do the > work. Where did that come from? The food you ate. Your body broke down > the chemicals in the food via what doctors call metabolism. just different > chemicals with less internal energy, and so your body got to use that > energy. Where did that energy come from? The sun that shone on the plants > via photosynthesis (or the animals that ate the plants). > > So, did gravity heat the lead shot? No. The sun provided the original > source of energy. All gravity did was to act on the shot after you raised > the potential energy. The source of energy was from the chemical reactions > in your body, not from the force field known as gravity. > > As for your barrel, the water flowing around it generates motion in the > water molecules. Motion in the water molecules has some finite non zero > velocity. An increase in velocity is by definition an increase in > temperature, it is just more kinetic energy. So as the barrel moves through > the water, as a car moves through the air, as your hand moves through the > air, they all increase the temperature of the fluid due to viscosity, which > is sort of the same thing as friction from rubbing your hands. You may be > fooled into thinking that waving your hands cools the air, because you are > feeling the evaporation of water molecules, which cools your hand. But the > net work expended does in fact heat the air just as certainly as the net > work in the lead shot experiment heats the lead. Try it. But, evaporation would generate heat according to what you say. > > > > > >I see the barrel going up because gravity is pulling the more dense water > >beneath the barrel and pushing it to the surface. I do not see any heat > energy > >being used for this motion. I do not think this motion would exist without > the > >force of gravity. > > Correct, correct, correct. You are missing the point entirely. The motion > in this case would not exist without gravity. But that does NOT mean that > gravity is a source of energy, it isn't in this instance. Allowing the > barrel to fall downward releases gravitational potential energy, yes. But > that energy was put into the barrel by the machine that did the lifting > (maybe you are the machine in this case if you do the lifting and burn > chemical fuels to produce the energy to lift it). Excuse me, I do not see a machine lifting the barrel. Are we talking about he same thing here? > > And as for not seeing any heat energy being lost in the motion of the > barrel, that is just because you do not understand that viscous damping of > the motion IS a loss of energy. And that loss of energy appears as HEAT. > > Your car brakes itself by dumping the kinetic energy of the car into the > brakes. The brakes dump that energy by getting hot and by conducting and > convecting that heat to the air. That is how your car stops, ultimately, by > dumping heat into the air! If your brakes did not lose heat to the air they > would melt after one or two stops. I think this is not a real answer. > > > > >Anybody got a non standard explaination for this gravity energy? > > Learn the standard explanation first, and then look for non standard ones. > You cannot even grasp whether something is or is not non standard yet > because you haven't studied the standard ideas. I don't mean to put too > much of a damper on enthusiasm, that isn't the point. But you need to study > some fundamental physics before you will be able to understand what is wrong > with what you are saying so that you can stand a chance of developing > something usefull. I am trying to understand what you are saying but you seem to have a different picture. Let's take the barrel or bubble and start with it down in the water. Let's isolate the action and not say how it got there. Let's start. The barrel or bubble goes up by the fact that it is less dense than the surrounding water. What makes it go up? Is there a force that pulls the barrel or bubble up? Is there a mchine that makes it go up? I see gravity pulling the more dense water beneath the barrel or bubble and pushing the barrel or bubble up. What do you see? David Dennard From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 23 21:35:21 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA00709; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 21:33:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 21:33:47 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 21:34:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809240434.VAA08823 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bouyancy Question /scuba tanks Resent-Message-ID: <"aWvf81.0.jA.hkS2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22671 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Again, > > > >I know it must sound strange to the sophisticated scientist but in commmon > sence > >terms it makes a lot of sense. I think what science is lacking most is > plain > >old common sense. > > NO. What you are lacking is an understanding of what is already understood. What I am trying to point out is that there are many things that are not understood. > > > >I think it is correct too. And it is a very important example of > gravitational > >energy, and it backs up Einsteins theory that the reason for all motion is > >gravity. Why science, that is largely based on Eisteins work does not > >acknowledge his most important work is hard for me to understand. If the > >current frame dragging informaion had come out in Einstein's day he would > have > >been all over it in a heartbeat. That was the missing piece of the puzzel > back > >then, now the puzzel has changed and most don't even see the importance. > > Frame dragging was well understood and known to Einstein. Again you are > misquoting history and confusing others. I did not say Einstein did not know about frame dragging. I said it was not proven, i.e. current frame dragging information. If fact, Einstein knew frame dragging was key to his Unified Field Theory. And proof back then would have gone a long way towards helping him prove it. > > > >Thank you Steve, > >Next I will go into greater detail on the relationship of Whirlpower to the > >hurricane. As hurricane Georges gets ready to hit the Keys I will pass on > key > >information on how the hurricane works and point out some very interesting > >features you can recognize once you know what to look for. > > Now, finally, you are going to make some observations that may be important. > If you did a lot of this, and none of your statements about what is known or > what was known, you would get a much better response. I am spending all my > time correcting your eroneous comments, and none of my time evaluating > phenomena you may have observed. And I have spent much time correcting your eroneous corrections. And I too look forward to getting down to proving or disproving my theory. If a mathmatical model of the whirlpool I propose to build were constructed and the speed and mass in the vortex/feedback system is compared to the speed and mass of the donut system, I predict the numbers will point to more energy in the donut system. How much more energy is there? It seems to be 90% more. The question is, can energy be taken out of the donut system and put into the vortex/feedback system with any left over for generating electricity? If so, and if it is several times more, as I think it will be, then we have a new and virtually infinite supply of clean gravitational energy. Anyone could be able to utilize it by putting in a fountain/whirlpool. I really think it will work! David Dennard From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 23 21:41:18 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA03724; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 21:38:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 21:38:41 -0700 Message-ID: <3609C015.3B9E earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 22:44:22 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Hansen: Storms: CF research 9.23.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"aeyqy2.0.1w.GpS2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22672 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Subject: Blue: Storms: issues in CF theory 9.21.98 -Reply Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 12:54:48 -0600 From: "Lee HANSEN" To: rmforall earthlink.net [Comments from Lee Hansen] Subject: Re: Storms: Blue: issues in CF research 9.18.98 Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 11:37:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard A Blue" To: rmforall earthlink.net > I would like to summarize the approach taken by Drs. Blue and Hansen and > then make a suggestion of how to break this impasse. > > Heat production can not be attributed to a nuclear reaction, unless a > nuclear product is found, and the quantity must be consistent with the > amount of heat. [Consistent and correlated with.] In the absence of having searched for a nuclear > product, the work done at SRI and elsewhere can not be believed [It can be believed to be, but it does not constitute proof or even good evidence of a nuclear process.]to > result from anything other than error or normal chemical reactions. [These simpler explanations are more likely than a nuclear reaction.] > Miles-Bush made a correlation study between heat and a nuclear product. > This is rejected because the heat measurement is believed to be faulty. > Without a believable heat measurement, the helium can not be attributed > to an anomalous nuclear reaction, there being various other > explanations. The Bush replication is rejected, [Not rejected, just not accepted because it is not readily available for examination.] because it has not been > reviewed and published, hence unknown to you. [So far I only have minor disagreements, mostly semantics.] Claims for tritium > production, as well as all helium claims, are rejected because they do > not conform to past experience, and, again, other explanations can be > imagined. The attitude being that such nuclear reactions are so > implausible, that even an implausible explanation will do. [I note that skeptics have "attitudes", while believers have "opinions".] > > Is this a fair and accurate representation of your attitudes? [Speaking for myself it is up to the last paragraph. I do not know of any claims for enough tritium or 3He to match simultaneous excess heat measurements that have not been invalidated.] If s o, I > suggest the Miles-Bush work holds the key. If you agree, I will > undertake a careful, heavily annotated review of the Miles-Bush studies > which we can use as a factual basis for discussion. If you do not > agree, then I=92m afraid I am wasting my time.[I doubt that we will be able to sort it out that way, but I have no problem agreeing to read and comment on the Miles-Bush report.] [Getting back to fundamentals, it is not whether or not people have observed excess heat (or at least what they interpreted as excess heat) that is the question, but rather the explanation for the observations. I think the following list of hypotheses covers the possible explanations for reports of excess heat- 1. Nuclear reaction(s) 2. Chemical reaction(s) including phase changes 3. Calorimetric error(s) 4. Violation of the laws of thermodynamics 5. Fraudulent data I hope we can agree to immediately eliminate the last two. As I see it the task then becomes to either prove one of the first three or to thoroughly disprove 2 of the first 3. Disproving any of the 3 is a lengthy and difficult process as shown by the discussions with skeptics over the last several years. Thus, the best approach is to prove that any of the first 3 hypotheses is correct. In the first two cases, equivalence and correlation between the products of the reaction and the heat effect is required, but not sufficient for proof. Reproduction of the correlation by other workers using different methods and circumstances greatly strengthens the proof. Hypothesis 3 presents a difficulty in that it can not usually either be proven or disproven with certainty except by proving hypothesis 1 or 2 for several cases.] From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 23 21:51:44 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA07906; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 21:50:43 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 21:50:43 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 21:51:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809240451.VAA10214 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Frame ...Re: Whirlpower Introduction Resent-Message-ID: <"IflQE3.0.Px1.Y-S2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22673 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > > You have read about frame dragging around a black hole or a > > neutron star, and you think that this is going to be of an amplitude that > > would be important in your hurricane or whirlpool. I think it is worth looking into. Since science has never been able to explain the hurricane I would think they would be open to suggestion. Since they just said on national TV that almost everything that science had thought about the vortex has just in the past year been proven to be wrong, I would thing they might want to look at some new ideas. I think that if frame dragging can occure in space over large distances that it would be a much more powerful event close to a body in space, like near the surface of a planet. From what I understand about gravity it is more powerful the closer to the planet. So in answer to your question, yes. David Dennard From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 23 21:57:12 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA08824; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 21:52:02 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 21:52:02 -0700 Message-ID: <3609C331.347F earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 22:57:37 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Blue: Storms: more issues of CF theory 9.23.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"yKcEM2.0.j92.o_S2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22674 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Subject: Re: Storms: Blue: issue in CF theory 9.21.98 Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 11:47:41 -0400 (EDT) From: "Richard A Blue" To: rmforall earthlink.net Let me see if I can get this discussion back to something more focused than just Ed Storms' misinterpretations of my position. As I understand CANR, it involves an energy release via a NUCLEAR REACTION. In general the experiments to which Ed Storms refers may (and in fact do) involve energy sources that have nothing to do with nuclear reactions. As I said, calorimetry does not differentiate between various sources very well. If I light a candle and stick my finger in the flame the fact that I burn my finger tells me little about the source reaction. I am just suggesting that a bit more specificity regarding an assumed NUCLEAR REACTION should play a central role in CANR investigations. I am actually mystified by Ed Storms unwillingness to deal with anything that relates to a NUCLEAR REACTION. So, absent any further willingness to discuss nuclear reactions, let me start a monologue. Let us say that someone does the P&F experiment, observes "excess heat", and offers an hypothesis that the heat is the result of deuteron fusion. They (and we) go to a standard textbook on nuclear physics where they learn about the fusion reaction and the three main branches that result in the emission of either: (1) energetic protons (2) energetic neutrons or (3) the formation of 4He at high excitation. Once this hypothesis has been made, it can be tested by a variety of appropriately designed experiments. Two types of measurements have been considered, and the experiments performed, not once but many times. On the one hand we have calorimetry showing "excess heat", and on the other hand, we have neutron detectors showing nothing. There is a seeming contradiction, but a simple, objective, rational way for arriving at a single summary result is available. Because we have a specific reaction hypothesis to test, we have a known relationship between nuclear energy release and neutron emission rate, so we can actually put these two measurements into the same domain by a simply conversion factor, and combine the two results. Without being too precise, let me say that the conversion factor is something of the order of 10^13 neutrons/sec per watt. Now I can easily measure the neutron emission rate to a precision of ONE neutron per second, while the calorimetry might be doing +/- ONE WATT, i.e. 10 billion times less precise. Now what happens when I combine the data from the two measurements I have described? The appropriate way to combine measurements is to do a weighted average with weights proportioned according to the precision. For the stated hypothesis, the neutron measurement dominates this weighted average to such a degree the calorimetric result is not significant. There was no point in ever having made the measurement, and repeating it cannot help. So one specific CANR hypothesis has been proposed, tested, and discarded. Can we move on to the next hypothesis? If you will state a specific reaction, presumably one involving deuterons in the initial state, and helium in the final state, we can perhaps repeat this excercise. Absent a specific hypothesis, there is no way to devise an alternative measurement to test the CANR claims. While that is a safe position for Ed Storms to occupy, I don't see that it offers a very constructive approach, and I can do nothing but offer my own hypotheses to show that they, too, can be shot down with ease. I just thought it would be helpful to get some participation from the advocates of CANR. However, it seems that designation has simply been introduced to cover up for the failure of the original cold fusion claims. There is no substance behind it. It seems Ed Storms clings to the notion that my case rests on something he calls "hot fusion." I have certainly not made any reference to that term, nor are my arguments specific to a particular temperature realm. Fundamentally, the temperature to which Storms makes reference need not be involved at all. Temperature is, after all, a parameter that applies to a specific system such as the lattice of palladium, with or without deuterium loading. I would generally say that the nuclear states in such a lattice do not participate in thermal exchange with the lattice, and are not altered by the temperature, at least not in the temperature range under consideration. As I recall the kT value that corresponds to 300K is a fraction of an electron volt, while nuclear states in light nuclei are more typically several million electron volts. "Hot" or "Cold", in the usual sense at least, just does not apply here. In fact I am quite happy to refer to data obtained from muon-catalyzed fusion in liquid deuterium. That's pretty cold, as I recall. I also will continue to make reference to known forms of CANR, and I am willing restrict those observations to ROOM TEMPERATURE!!!! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 23 22:23:30 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA20266; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 22:22:12 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 22:22:12 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 22:22:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809240522.WAA11655 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Snorkel; Resent-Message-ID: <"OzSY3.0.ay4.3ST2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22675 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John, I enjoyed reading something with a similar ring. I have worked on this for a number of years. What I see is something that would allow a person to be underwater but not a that complicates the situation and also be an excellent life preserver. > Second thought you don't need any winding mechanism as long as it has a > slight > buoyancy (so all excess rises to the top and out of the way of obstructions, > further more a somewhat more flexible tube could be found other than garden > hose of > course), I also just started to read an email by David Dennard who seems to > have a > somewhat similar idea. Yes similar but far simpler and not the depth. this may not be something one would want for getting down very far to examine reefs like most snorkelers do, but just to be able to get in underwater and swim around and see with such simplicilty and ease would be great. Not to mention the life saying potential. > > John Berry wrote: > > > Why don't you just use two weighted tubes one for air in and the other for > > air > > out with a valve so you don't have to re-breath the air (as you can't push > > it > > up so many feet each breath so you keep breathing the same air) , Right on target. It would > > be > > weighted so the tube had neutral buoyancy, I think better to wear a weight belt. Keep the "Aqualung" as simple as possible. Other ideas would be a snorkel > > with > > a u bend on the end so you can go under water with it but water not go in > > it > > (just as a submarine can have a hole on it's bottom) maybe some cheese > > cloth or > > anything else that would resist water but not air, further you could add a > > bag > > of air so you could breath in and out and stay down for an extended period > > of > > time. > > Though this could be added to a snorkel (only making it easier to go down > > not > > really stay down) the tube idea would have to be used to stay down as long > > as > > you wanted, it looks rather easy to try really, two garden hoses with > > valves > > weighted down, a bunch of coke bottles filled with with to keep the feed > > end > > above sea level, you could further add a thing to wind up excess extended > > tube > > as needed depending on how often there would be excess slack (changing > > depth a > > lot) and if there were and obstructions for it to be caught in then a > > mechanisms to wind up slack would be a very good idea. This and many other variation could be added but you just can't beat "Aqualung" for sheer simplicity. > > > > John Berry > > > > Rick Monteverde wrote: > > > > > Ross - > > > > > > > The trick is to make a device to exchange > > > > the air, and then another device to drive the > > > > balloons through the water, ie, you still > > > > have viscous losses in the motion through > > > > the water. > > > > > > I did mention that the balloon thing was just to illuminate the concept > > > in > > > case anyone thought I was trying to either create free energy or directly > > > suck air down a tube from 10' deep. Not at all suggested as an actual > > > device. When I did my out take on your post I also did not mean to say there is any energy there to tap. But I did want to raise the idea that gravity was at work as far as raising a barrel or bubble from the depths. I don't think it is gravity energy that can be tapped directly but that gravity is the reason for the action. And I still think that to be so. > > > > > > The practical device would be something based on either a backpack of > > > accumulators/pumps, or similar gear on a float on the surface with just a > > > regulator of sorts down below. Probably have accumulators below, come to > > > think of it, because one likely necessary component would be a manual > > > pump > > > to add energy (pump air from the surface) when needed, either while > > > descending to depth or if you clear your mask or cough or something and > > > waste air (energy) by blowing bubbles. I assume that there is a severe > > > KISS > > > factor necessary here, or else the whole thing becomes complicated - > > > therefore expensive and/or not so robust, which defeats the whole *niche* > > > purpose. After all there is SCUBA and surface pumps like the Brownie > > > engine > > > powered pump, etc. It's not just a matter of how can this be done, but > > > very > > > much of how can it be done cheaply, simply, and resulting in a durable, > > > robust gizmo that would work properly and sell well. > > > > > > Any comments anyone might want to throw at this would be appreciated, but > > > maybe better via e-mail, as this has veered pretty far off topic. > > > > > > Maybe use some sort of Vortex pump? ;) > > > Rick, if Whirlpower is proven to work there will be untold uses and untold "spinoffs". David Dennard From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 23 22:48:24 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA25761; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 22:46:49 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 22:46:49 -0700 Message-ID: <3609DB93.65A8 gold.globalcafe.co.uk> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 06:41:39 +0100 From: energy gold.globalcafe.co.uk (John Allan) Reply-To: energy gold.globalcafe.co.uk Organization: Energy Solutions X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Searl/aqualung References: <199809222145.OAA04346 mx1.eskimo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"vSFFZ.0.RI6.8pT2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22676 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Just out of interest, if anyone want to contact engineers working directly on Searl's equipment I can put you in touch. Likewise to the individual that got him back in business after many years in the wilderness. In both cases you will get a different answer and statement of events than to John's. I have not been following the talk on htis one but did see the mail about 600,000,000 pounds being spent and can state that is purely imaginary. They are working on goodwill, bootlegs and credit just like anyone else. In my experience of both, John makes the likes of Stan Meyer seem reasonable. Even his brother doubts anything ever worked and says he has never seen anything. The business side of Searl team have had to move him out the way because he can be so self destructive, so it may be worth speaking to them. They are having difficulty getting magnets made up and dealing with John's latest inspirations. It seems the " law of squares " is something new. Without denying any effect, John's seminars are closer to spiritualist revival meetings than science. I think the psychic side of all this is actually something worth discussion, but perhaps not here. Given the numbers of claims for divine inspiration, a number of the fringe elements in free energy seem to be manifesting symptons similar to uncontrolled psychics. John would certainly count in amongst these. Something which individuals with no appreciation of this sort of phenomenon would just dismiss as mental illness or cranky behaviour. Still the offer for anyone wanting to talk to the crew stands. Regards, John Allan T:+44 181 533 5880 Did you know that it is possible to breathe Brown's Gas safely for some considerable time? I know the French Navy also go diving on electrolysed water. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 23 23:31:33 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA04426; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 23:21:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 23:21:03 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 23:21:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809240621.XAA13559 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Whirlpower Theory Resent-Message-ID: <"-JB5t3.0.351.EJU2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22677 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In message <199809240252.TAA23781 Au.oro.net> writes: > David ; > > Please at a minimum, answer the questions regarding periods at the end. > > Everyone; > > I am sorry for the comments trying to correct David, but he is saying things > that just aren't correct and I am trying to get him to speak to things he > knows, ie facts, and to avoid bantering about things he thinks, which are in > error (ie interpretations of what others are saying). It isn't that he > talks about these things, but rather that he is stating these things as > facts wondering why physicists don't understand his view, when his view is > incorrect to begin with and he doesn't understand the physics of what he has > read. In my defense, I also have shown Ross does not have the answers to the power of the hurricane. I have also shown Vera Rubin's studies draw conclusions and questions that back up what I am saying. I am not I have proof or that I am a scientist. I am saying that what I say makes sense and has to many who are not scientists. And since science has not made sense of the hurricane or the vortex and has had the knowledge and the skill and the money to find out these things long before I was born that somebody needs to take another look. Just to say I don't know what I am saying because I can't cite physics formulas is a cop out in my opinion. In the time Ross as spent telling me I am wrong he probably could calculate the forces in Whirlpower ttheory and give us all a rough estimate of what is going on. That is all I ask. Without dogma, without predjudice, just the data. > > I would like to learn about facts about hurricanes that he may have come > across. These include periods of rotation, periods of wobble, wind > velocities as a function of periods, periods as a function of time of year, > probabilities of hurricanes as a function of month of year, etc. ie data. Here our thought becomes one. > > Avoid conclusions where they are not in your field and just present what is > known. The above periods are potentially important because it is known that > the sun has a number of periods of oscillation. And from my models, I am > convinced that those periods should show up in atmospheric disturbances (ie > spiral lee vortices, VBrand waves, etc etc ). I can't research everything, > so if he has information, lets hear it. I think everything I have said is in the form of a theory. > > Anyway, here are more corrections, followed at the end by some bonified > questions. > > > >When Austrian Physicists Hans and Thirring proposed frame dragging way back > in > >1918 they had not way to prove it. Last Nov. it was finally proven. > > The Lens Thirring effect is known, and was known to them. Use a glass > cylinder and rotate it, shine a leg of an optical interferometer through the > glass and the other legs through air, and fringing occurs. they did it. I stand corrected, that was Joseph Lense and Hans Thirring. According to the Washington post they said just as a moving electric charge generates a secondary magnetic force, they suggested a second kind of gravitational force when an object spins. And they did not just mean black holes but even the Earth itself. I am saying it applies to any spinning object, and if that object is near a massive body, (such as the Earth) it will be even stronger. > > > >The Earth is also frame dragging the Moon. Why this isn't seen or reported > I > >don't know but it is quite evident. The Moon is receeding away from the > Earth. > > This is not frame dragging. This is due to the time response of the tidal > bulge of the earth always lagging. Thus, the moon always sees more mass of > the earth displaced slightly ahead in it's orbit, and thus it is always > accelerated with a small tangential component. Now here we have something that sounds just like frame dragging, but is said to be in responce to the gravity of the tidal effect of the moon. Far out. And way far off, in my opinion. That would be like a surf board trying to ride the backside of a wave. Or sayin, the moon is generating its own motion, and riding tide waves of the Earth. To say my theory is nuts and then to say this is totally unbelievable. > > Again David, you are spouting things that are not correct and should be more > careful. Frame dragging is not involved in that phenomena (correct me if I > am wrong and there is a paper on frame dragging being the cause of the moons > acceleration, please cite the paper, book, author) Whirlpower Theory by David Dennard > > > >And it used to go around the Earth more times per year. And it is speeding > up. > > The moon isn't speeding up. The acceleration in the tangential direction > leads to the moon climbing in orbital radius, and thus slowing down due to > gain in gravitational PE. The moons orbit is slowing, not speeding. The > radius is increasing. I can't prove or disprove this and even if it is slowing down, which I don't think it is, it is not slowing down at the same rate that the pull of gravity should produce. You say it is riding on the back side of tidal waves, I say it is being frame dragged by the wobble of the Earth. > > Also, FYI, the solar neutrinos have a ~28 day period, and so are close to > frequency lock with the moon. Ergo, aether emission oscillations due to > nuclear fusion oscillations may be driving the moons orbital period to some > degree, leading to some of the strange libration phenomena. > > > >So really, the Moon is feeding off the Earth. > > Yes. The period of rotation of the earth is slowing down as the "reaction" > to the increase in lunar orbital radius. Simple action reaction. Agreed the spin of the Earth is slowing down but I say it is because the Moon is increasing its orbital radius due to the frame dragging. Lets take a vote. All in favor of saying the motion of the Moon is that it is riding on the backside of its own tidal wave, say so. All in favor of saying the Moon is being frame dragged by the wobble of the Earth say so. > > > >This whip effect is not unknown to science, we used it in our moon shots. > Why > >it is not recognized as the reason for the motion of the Moon is hard for > me to > >understand. But that is not the entire story. > > Because satelites don't do the same thing. They don't cause the sphere of > the earth to distort in shape. The effects are NOT used on our moon shots. > You are confusing two completely different phenomena. Here you are getting confused. Proof is offered at my discussion board that satellites are being frame dragged. I never said they are riding tidal waves, that is your story. I have seen it said many times that the gravitationl whip effect was used in our moon shots and I bet everyone here has seen the same thing. True or False? > > > >The Sun is frame dragging the Earth. The Sun wobbles. Any spinning object > >wobbles be it ever so great or small. This wobble frame drags the Earth > and all > >the Planets. > > The planets are not dragged by the wobble, they are dragged by the radically > tiny frame dragging of the sun due to it's rotation, not it's wobble. Frame dragging does not come from rotation. And before you said frame dragging was not very powerful. Now you are saying it is dragging the entire solar system. Now you are really not making sense. Which is it? ? ******************** ? *****This must be the crux of the problem. You think frame dragging is from rotation, I think frame dragging is from the wobble, which is also rotation, but rotation with a lever. If we can figure this part out we have the answer.****** ! ******************** ! The > wobble would only generate a net effect if it was in frequency lock with > some process, ie rotation, of a planet or the fluids (air) of a planet. > Aside from that, wobble does nothing but jitter things around. And that > said, the wobble would probably displace the surface of the oceans by about > the size of a nucleus of an atom (I actually had to determine this as the > distortion of the gravitational waves from binary neutron stars in an > attempt to determine the ratio of a different kind of gravitational wave I > anticipate from the sun) > > > >This Unified Field Theory show gravity is causing every spinning thing in > the > >universe to wobble. Vera Rubin has found > > What paper or book of Vera's are you getting this stuff from? You are > really misquoting her on your interpretation of dark matter etc. Please > provide quotes directly from people you say are saying things, and not your > interpretation of what they are saying because you are not understanding > their comments. I have to guess that you did not see the ABC NEWS Show or Transcript I have offered. If you did you would see everything I have said was reported on that show and I saw her speak it out of her own mouth. It is in print and available to you all for free (ABC now wants money to see it) at my discusion board. > > > This wobble frame drags the bulk of the hurricane. You can > >see the acceleration midway between the eye and the outer edge. It appears > as > >an accelerated woosh. It is also measused in the northwest quadrent as > faster > >than the speed of the eye wall and is where the major damage is done when it > > >makes land fall. > > What are the periods of rotation of typical hurricanes? > > What are the periods of wobble of typical hurricanes? > > And what ranges do the measured values have, ie, do large hurricanes have > typical periods that are different from smaller hurricanes, or do they all > have nearly the same periods but with different intensities of winds? Here you seem to wander off in scientific Noman's Land. What is for sure is the wind cannot account for the power of a hurricane. The heat from the Sun cannot spin a hurricane. And I have shown gravity is the reason for evaporation anyway. A hurricane spins because of gravity and so does the whirlpool. It should be common sense and soon I will prove it if I can. David Dennard From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 24 00:52:18 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA17987; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 00:48:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 00:48:47 -0700 Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 01:50:30 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: David Dennard cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Aqualung In-Reply-To: <199809240051.RAA26879 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"eL_kQ3.0.uO4.VbV2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22678 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, David Dennard wrote:[snip] headgear with a built in facemask. There are one way valves that allows for air intake/exhale. And a weight belt. -------------- Hi David, Yes, one-way valves! I just thought of that last night, looks like you beat me to it. Did you ever build a prototype? Did you use (envision) flap-type rubber valves or Ball/spring valves? steve (day late $ short too :) ekwall From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 24 01:40:46 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA23803; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 01:38:05 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 01:38:05 -0700 Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 01:38:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809240838.BAA16435 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Aqualung Resent-Message-ID: <"2RU3z3.0.qp5.iJW2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22679 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Steve, Like I said, I know giving this away may not bring me anything. So I man not have beaten you to it at all. I hope this list can be a good place to express myself in my own benefit but I do not count on it or expect it, but I do honestly hope for it. $ I don't mind being poor, its the inability do build an invention after working on if for years. You said, > On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, David Dennard wrote:[snip] > headgear with a built in facemask. There are one way valves that allows > for air > intake/exhale. And a weight belt. > -------------- > > Hi David, > Yes, one-way valves! I just thought of that last night, looks like you > beat me to it. Did you ever build a prototype? Did you use (envision) > flap-type rubber valves or Ball/spring valves? > > steve (day late $ short too :) ekwall Keep up the positive and I'll let you invent the valves. Incase this actually works? :) David Dennard "the hardest working man in dreamland" From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 24 02:00:15 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA28110; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 01:58:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 01:58:42 -0700 Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 01:59:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809240859.BAA16803 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Whirlpower Resent-Message-ID: <"SqiaW.0.6t6.1dW2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22680 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: If Ross wants to say the moon is riding on its own generated tidal wave, that the moon is causing a tidalwave, exposes more Earth that pulls the Moon, Perpetual Moon Surfing Ross Can the moon generate a tidal wave and then ride it? Now that would be perpetual motion! I think I got you Ross, you can't have it both ways. If the Moon generates the action it is trying to tap it would lose power. To do it and gain orbital radius would be perpetual motion and in violation of the laws of physics. If the wobble of the Earth which also exposes more of the Earth and pulls the Moon by frame dragging were considered, and confirmed as the Real Unified Field Theory the laws of physics would not be violated. Now, for us to come all this way and change the most basic law here just for this particular circumstance; I will just have to accept it, since I am not in a posistion to protect myself. But I call 'em like I see 'em. I just won this debate! David Dennard From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 24 03:09:15 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA08093; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 03:08:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 03:08:33 -0700 Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 04:10:14 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: David Dennard cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Whirlpower Theory In-Reply-To: <199809240621.XAA13559 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"_YXAj3.0.M-1.WeX2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22681 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, David Dennard wrote: -------------------------[snip most] ? ******************** ? *****This must be the crux of the problem. You think frame dragging is from rotation, I think frame dragging is from the wobble, which is also rotation, but rotation with a lever. If we can figure this part out we have the answer.****** ! ******************** ! -------------------------[snip more] What is for sure is the wind cannot account for the power of a hurricane. The heat from the Sun cannot spin a hurricane. And I have shown gravity is the reason for evaporation anyway. A hurricane spins because of gravity and so does the whirlpool. It should be common sense and soon I will prove it if I can. David Dennard -------------- Hi Ross, David and all, Ross has noted that indeed we do weigh less at night (opposition from the sun). Is there data that a hurricane "slows" at NIGHT? This would be a common 'key-part' for you both. (understood landmass - lack of water will slow it!:) -=se=- steve (just a thought that was going round & a round:) ekwall off to view the weather channel. ekwall2 diac.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 24 03:19:39 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA10322; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 03:18:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 03:18:28 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <360AADB3.EA3F3C32 ihug.co.nz> References: <360AAB06.DAFE96C0 ihug.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 00:17:20 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Snorkel; Resent-Message-ID: <"gGO3j3.0.7X2.qnX2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22682 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John - Quite aside from the issue of CO2 accumulating in a long snorkel, I am unable to breathe with any effectiveness at all with the center of effort of my lungs (somewhere around nipple level) at around 3 feet deep. And it's real uncomfortable even trying. 1.5 to maybe 2 feet is about the max I think I could endure as a practical matter without it being greatly distracting while trying to do some light work or sightseeing. The 10' device would require some sort of energy recovery in some version of a motor/pump relationship, and of course have a double hose to the surface. Another nonintuitive thing I discovered while researching this is that it's much easier to inhale against resistance than it is to exhale. Most people guess you could blow harder, but lungs are built to inhale for survival, and so are strong that way. Both actions could be used to some extent as a total pressure differential to tap lung power to make up for the shortfall in the machine efficiency of the device, but exhaling against resistance is very distracting, and makes blowing bubbles past the mouthpiece with the resulting energy loss more likely. More than anyone wanted to know about this subject I'm sure, but hey - at least this thread isn't about Newman machines *OR* Monica Lewinsky! - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 24 08:52:38 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA23737; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 08:51:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 08:51:09 -0700 Message-Id: <199809241551.KAA04319 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 10:51:02 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: Whirlpower Theory Resent-Message-ID: <"xh8hU3.0.Lo5.ifc2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22683 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, David Dennard wrote: >-------------------------[snip most] > ? ******************** ? > *****This must be the crux of the problem. You think frame dragging is >from > rotation, I think frame dragging is from the wobble, which is also >rotation, but > rotation with a lever. If we can figure this part out we have the >answer.****** > ! ******************** ! > >-------------------------[snip more] > > What is for sure is the wind cannot account for the power of a hurricane. >The > heat from the Sun cannot spin a hurricane. And I have shown gravity is >the > reason for evaporation anyway. > > A hurricane spins because of gravity and so does the whirlpool. It >should be > common sense and soon I will prove it if I can. > David Dennard > >-------------- >Hi Ross, David and all, > > Ross has noted that indeed we do weigh less at night (opposition from >the sun). ***{If the position of the moon is ignored, we weigh *more* at night, due to the fact that the sun and the earth are both beneath our feet, and thus are pulling in the same direction. We weigh less during the day, when the sun is overhead and thus pulling us up, while the earth is below and pulling us down. --Mitchell Jones}*** Is there data that a hurricane "slows" at NIGHT? This would be a >common 'key-part' for you both. (understood landmass - lack of water will >slow it!:) > >-=se=- >steve (just a thought that was going round & a round:) ekwall >off to view the weather channel. >ekwall2 diac.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 24 08:55:04 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA23764; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 08:51:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 08:51:10 -0700 Message-Id: <199809241551.KAA04322 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 10:51:03 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: Snorkel; Resent-Message-ID: <"YzjMH3.0.oo5.ifc2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22684 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >John - > >Quite aside from the issue of CO2 accumulating in a long snorkel, I am >unable to breathe with any effectiveness at all with the center of effort >of my lungs (somewhere around nipple level) at around 3 feet deep. And it's >real uncomfortable even trying. 1.5 to maybe 2 feet is about the max I >think I could endure as a practical matter without it being greatly >distracting while trying to do some light work or sightseeing. The 10' >device would require some sort of energy recovery in some version of a >motor/pump relationship, and of course have a double hose to the surface. > >Another nonintuitive thing I discovered while researching this is that it's >much easier to inhale against resistance than it is to exhale. Most people >guess you could blow harder, but lungs are built to inhale for survival, >and so are strong that way. Both actions could be used to some extent as a >total pressure differential to tap lung power to make up for the shortfall >in the machine efficiency of the device, but exhaling against resistance is >very distracting, and makes blowing bubbles past the mouthpiece with the >resulting energy loss more likely. > >More than anyone wanted to know about this subject I'm sure, but hey - at >least this thread isn't about Newman machines *OR* Monica Lewinsky! ***{If this thread were about Newman machines, at least it would be on topic. If it were about Monica Lewinsky it would not be any more off topic than it is, and it would be a hell of a lot more interesting. (Monica is welcome under my desk any time! :-) --Mitchell Jones}*** > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 24 09:08:42 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA30971; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 09:06:36 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 09:06:36 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980924120734.00cdcb00 spectre.mitre.org> X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 12:07:34 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Robert I. Eachus" Subject: Re: Bouyancy Question Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com In-Reply-To: References: <19980923122805.29983.qmail hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"wm9no.0.bZ7.9uc2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22685 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 12:25 PM 9/23/98 -1000, Rick Monteverde wrote: >That's what I was after. Solar, batteries, engines, fancy bearings and so >forth are not what I wanted. I wanted something robust, simple, and mostly >made of plastic & rubber so it's lightweight and can be thrown in the >locker or storage bay without rinsing much like an ordinary mask and >snorkle. Something that wouldn't easily be fouled by sand, silt, or minor >corrosion around metal fasteners, etc., and is instantly ready for use when >it's time to jump in the water with a greenie to clean the bottom of your >boat or pool. A simple air driven motor driving a simple air pump is the >basic idea. Implementing that to the above criteria proved too difficult >for me. But I bet someone figures it out eventually. I think it's a good, >marketable invention waiting to be 'discovered'. I know what you want, but the tradeoff is between low maintenance and self powered. Using the right type of blower, you could build a system that worked effectively down to about 50 feet. But here is the catch. As you change depth, the air pressure needs to change as well. Even if you put the regulator in your mouth, there is lung volume to contend with. Adding air to this volume can't be pumped by the lungs so you have to use some other source of power. Now you could run everything using a battery driven motor, and recover the energy required to go deeper when you go up--remember that during a "normal" dive you will be constantly changing depth by about 4-6 feet. By now, you can see how complex this gets. So could be done, but difficult to maintain. 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 Sep 24 09:32:52 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA08170; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 09:26:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 09:26:39 -0700 Comments: ( Received on ftpbox.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com ) Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com Message-ID: <360A70C7.D24FFEA7 css.mot.com> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 11:18:15 -0500 From: John Steck Organization: Motorola PCS - Rapid Tooling Applications X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Discussion Group - Vortex Subject: [Fwd: Aqualung] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"nJIPD3.0.T_1.zAd2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22686 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: David Dennard wrote: > > Like I said, I know giving this away may not bring me anything. So I man not > > have beaten you to it at all. Is this something you've patented? -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John E. Steck Senior Mechanical Engineer Rapid Tooling Applications Motorola, Libertyville, IL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces, It is not God who kills the children. Not Fate that butchers them or Destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It's us. Only us." - Rorschach From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 24 10:24:50 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA30618; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 10:20:27 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 10:20:27 -0700 Message-ID: <01BDE7B6.34AA92E0 209-113-17-144.insync.net> From: guest To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Whirlpower Theory Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 12:21:34 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BDE7B6.34CC24A0" Resent-Message-ID: <"1F1SD1.0.IU7.Pzd2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22687 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ------ =_NextPart_000_01BDE7B6.34CC24A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mitchell Jones wrote... >***{If the position of the moon is ignored, we weigh *more* at night, = due >to the fact that the sun and the earth are both beneath our feet, and = thus >are pulling in the same direction. We weigh less during the day, when = the >sun is overhead and thus pulling us up, while the earth is below and >pulling us down. --Mitchell Jones}*** It was my understanding that we WOULD weigh less at night for the same = reasons that high tide exists simultaneously on opposite sides of the = earth. Since from a mathematical perspective the earth's center of = gravity is what the sun is really "pulling" on, the side of the earth = that is farthest from the sun would experience more orbital centrifugal = force than the sun's gravity and the side of the earth that is closest = to the sun would experience more of the sun's gravity and less orbital = centrifugal force. The point of earth's center of gravity would = experience both the sun's gravity and orbital centrifugal force in equal = amounts that net to zero. Allen Nelson -----Original Message----- From: Mitchell Jones [SMTP:mjones jump.net] Sent: Thursday, September 24, 1998 11:07 AM To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Whirlpower Theory >On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, David Dennard wrote: >-------------------------[snip most] > ? ******************** ? > *****This must be the crux of the problem. You think frame = dragging is >from > rotation, I think frame dragging is from the wobble, which is also >rotation, but > rotation with a lever. If we can figure this part out we have the >answer.****** > ! ******************** ! > >-------------------------[snip more] > > What is for sure is the wind cannot account for the power of a = hurricane. >The > heat from the Sun cannot spin a hurricane. And I have shown = gravity is >the > reason for evaporation anyway. > > A hurricane spins because of gravity and so does the whirlpool. = It >should be > common sense and soon I will prove it if I can. > David Dennard > >-------------- >Hi Ross, David and all, > > Ross has noted that indeed we do weigh less at night (opposition = from >the sun). ***{If the position of the moon is ignored, we weigh *more* at night, = due to the fact that the sun and the earth are both beneath our feet, and = thus are pulling in the same direction. We weigh less during the day, when = the sun is overhead and thus pulling us up, while the earth is below and pulling us down. --Mitchell Jones}*** Is there data that a hurricane "slows" at NIGHT? This would be a >common 'key-part' for you both. (understood landmass - lack of water = will >slow it!:) > >-=3Dse=3D- >steve (just a thought that was going round & a round:) ekwall >off to view the weather channel. >ekwall2 diac.com ------ =_NextPart_000_01BDE7B6.34CC24A0 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IjsRAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQmAAQAhAAAAMzA3OEFEMDVCRjUxRDIxMTgxMzQwMDgwNUYzMURE QzMA9wYBBYADAA4AAADOBwkAGAAMABUAIgAEAD0BASCAAwAOAAAAzgcJABgADAAVACIABAA9AQEE kAYAxAEAAAEAAAARAAAAAwAAMAAAAAALAA8OAAAAAAIB/w8BAAAARwAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1u AN0BD1QCAAAAACd2b3J0ZXgtbEBlc2tpbW8uY29tJwBTTVRQAHZvcnRleC1sQGVza2ltby5jb20A AB4AAjABAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAAHgADMAEAAAAUAAAAdm9ydGV4LWxAZXNraW1vLmNvbQACAfYP AQAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAwAVDAEAAAACAQswAQAAABkAAABTTVRQOlZPUlRFWC1MQEVTS0lNTy5DT00A AAAAHgABMAEAAAAWAAAAJ3ZvcnRleC1sQGVza2ltby5jb20nAAAAHgAgOgEAAAAWAAAAJ3ZvcnRl eC1sQGVza2ltby5jb20nAAAACwBAOgEAc3QDAP4PBgAAAAMAADkAAAAAAwD/XwAAAAADAP1fAQAA AB4A9l8BAAAAFAAAAHZvcnRleC1sQGVza2ltby5jb20AAgH3XwEAAABFAAAAAAAAAIErH6S+oxAZ nW4A3QEPVAIAAAAAdm9ydGV4LWxAZXNraW1vLmNvbQBTTVRQAHZvcnRleC1sQGVza2ltby5jb20A AAAAkF8BDYAEAAIAAAACAAIAAQSAAQAWAAAAUkU6IFdoaXJscG93ZXIgVGhlb3J5AL8HAQOQBgCY EAAAKwAAAAIBcQABAAAAFgAAAAG95+AWygeZo4VTiRHSsR4AYAiv9+4AAAIBMQABAAAAHAEAAFBD REZFQjA5AAEAAgB1AAAAAAAAADihuxAF5RAaobsIACsqVsIAAEVNU01EQi5ETEwAAAAAAAAAABtV +iCqZhHNm8gAqgAvxFoMAAAAVEJFTEhPVQAvbz1UcmFjdGViZWwvb3U9VEJFTEVYSE8vY249UmVj aXBpZW50cy9jbj1DUmF3bHMALgAAAAAAAACRfIMWYsLREbJXAIBfMd3DAQBAw+86qaDREbJMAIBf Md3DAAAABDm0AAAAAAAALgAAAAAAAACRfIMWYsLREbJXAIBfMd3DAQBAw+86qaDREbJMAIBfMd3D AAAABDm2AAAQAAAAMHitBb9R0hGBNACAXzHdwxYAAABSRTogV2hpcmxwb3dlciBUaGVvcnkAAwA2 AAAAAAADAAaACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAABShQAAtw0AAB4AJoAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABG AAAAAFSFAAABAAAABAAAADguMAADACeACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAABhQAAAAAAAAsAAYAI IAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAAOFAAAAAAAACwAwgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAADoUAAAAA AAADAAOACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAQhQAAAAAAAAMAMYAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAA ABGFAAAAAAAAAwAzgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAGIUAAAAAAAAeAEKACCAGAAAAAADAAAAA AAAARgAAAAA2hQAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAHgBDgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAN4UAAAEAAAAB AAAAAAAAAB4ARIAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAADiFAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAACAQkQAQAAANAK AADMCgAArBkAAExaRnUBAvNIAwAKAHJjcGcxMjVyMgxgYzEDMAEHC2BukQ4QMDMzDxZmZQ+STwH3 AqQDYwIAY2gKwHOEZXQC0XBycTIAAJIqCqFubxJQIDAB0IUB0DYPoDA1MDQUIfMB0BQQNH0HbQKD AFAD1PsR/xMLYhPhFFATshj0FNCvBxMCgAKRCOY7CW8wGt/6ZQ4wNRwKHSEc3x3pG/T/HhIcfyBP IA0fjx2/HA8QYPwyOCXaJvEmrye5G/Qn4r8mTyofKd0pXyePK1Q5DlAfLqQwASgjMAACgnN0eeps B5BoCeB0AAATUAPwUGRjdGwKsVwyWGGYZGp1MXAFEGdoBUI7FjIMAWMJwDJgAzBzbnxleBcwB7AF sADAAnNzsQBQc2IyFFAxYGET8PRcawngcAuQMj8yowhg6zKQC4BlMaB2OWABQDObvwwwNGQoADdA BKALgGcn8ek05mJhFxBkAiA1oDVG5zHQM5A7kSAxMTMOUDaf/zevOL8AUTn8AKA0bjx/PYb/MSQP wD6PP59Arw5QOe9DD9tEHz2zMwKCExBjNmBLoZMzkD2wdGk5kCBEARCoYXVsBUBQCsBhCcDgYXBo IEYCITYkJUDoZmktD5A4AUA5MFAz60cPMqNiCyByCVBSUhag2VJSdzQlQRcAcAHQTXJ/M79Kn0um T9BOkAUQAjAtQ08wA2E6IFRvV7BTKHViagWQdFewRGHodGU6NiQ2T/9RD1If/1MvVDkxwD2jDiFL oTq2DlCbVW9WflI5gRcBIEg9kfsEkDYkN1lvWn9bj1ydOQ8vXb8PkGlwCNBiCrB0OP9J+g9URhBf v2DGagBh0AtQvHkvT0BcsAsRYkVzNiT/KABjP2RPZV9cr1RPa19sb+9tdVfSV3RYqTlvvzM/AzAd abM5c590r3qgRG9j/nUHgAIwBdBPABoBeNJ4MPd4cHFRAYBuWDAAYAnwTaDvfQACATXgXlJlAPB9 ADGAknAegFx2CJB3awuA/mRrQICiBPAHQBBhAUAOAO9xIj2CggUCEG8FQhchEvINWMBtC1FYwCBD OlzqXFcAb07hbU8wAxAHkE2EsE0N4ANgc28BgCCuTwEgDeB/8FyGZkUAwPUDEC5LcHR90BcQeHA1 Id1ncnhGMYgiTjRjAyAS8/MAgAWQbHZBoUbQDnA14P+KAgGQACCKkoDxfUEBwYoBPxbgD3AAAEbQ DNABkCAu/xoSifgOUIqyTnB4wIsvjD9/jU8PwEbQBYGO74//kQ9su2tARtBsjq+Tb5R1KY18jyVA kk+XL5RkYiAoApH/mE+KQ1lQlf+av5vPnN+KcP9jEJ4iiv+fj6CfjXwoAJ4v/6OvpL+lz4pweACi r6g/qU//qlQK+QMweC95P3rNCME08q81oIXAiZAx0GwDIEoCIGcHkBoiszQgdwNgWMCFFQqFPrR4 KragXHtJyGYgdDHQIHATYE3B/QIgIIYgtxMEYLfBBAC4oPZnE1Aa8Sy1EBOAuXCxwae2kARgGvAq IFiwIAMAe7HRuVBkClAKhbR4tfl0fm+3E05AsEC3EbpxtyJz/nUDoABwNSC3Ij2QACBPIO8KwBOA BuC/QWIJ8D2Qv0H/CGG9YDHhuVC+lLGAu0+1+f2/cnBOYGdxPeCvsb4ThSAfE4A9sBrwsEC3sS4g V3+5hjGhBCC7EFcRPeC3ImT8YXm5UTHQxDPBr7X5vlJ9uLFvYfE9gsEXw5fLEXX+cMdShWG+ybix wAAJAAfgP76Rx/+1+ctJfhHFYS0tubOcXH22oc33CoVJBUDzbZAEIG15y7CswRcAAZAPfxDGpLpx uXFXT1VM/kTFurp2vWAFscRXGvBLQP8CIAQgvcPMQLnRTdABAL8A2ngEAHQEIACQbU5hAHC6ZQhg c20wt+C30XC3Y/++MdixygG3BL8TxXAGAAuA/4agvWADYbpguFDAQYQQWLD/DeAHQLdQYgGAYMUh TfG+19kAEHF1tUG+QCCGoAIw/wSQt+JO4YCgMYC4osdwvenfuLHXgbPw05BvQGQCYN90/8OlABDi 19pBuVC+E9iy23r/vbS4sU5AvzEHkNaR3NK+Fv53CGDiwNjh3gEIkNyCuhJ5t+ByYk3A3dHf8gaB df5n3dF/cdyRvcHENb5g31j/4Ja+kgKQ5N/l6wKQiaATYfcxcAKQ7SJv78Hnn+imApD/6SS3BOuv 7LbGIwKQ6XbvMfvqDtwxVLczVyG34t8N9VT/4DPvweCW8O+/s/Kf7Hz03/vqaa+xZd9w3dGFIAhg AjAv1+U1YL2hvRB6BJBvLrsKhQqFQbPwx5EHwGzXsf/N9grzr9+w74NQ0pa0eBLykGJrbWusIyBf fYCzh5BYoWF90MAIUU+xsdsLgN3RTcYxTtBlCFMCq/+vdmL/b69wv3HPZz9oT2lfb2pvsrxXc4Pw Yamws5wgAFtTTVRQOm1qrbQyQLFwhCAuAEFdCf//CwRuvwx/DY9x77FvsnlKEH2zJVN9QRTktHj2 sMaAc/vHIx+QcIQBwADAoEYQuVAFL/A5ElAxMTowN70B0E0FyB8HdrEf7XbWwOFYwHgtbEDbQIDg uGD8LmPc4CMvH3FYJR/tYdD9V7BXzEAboLdguXDAoPax/dbAeRefr78Ebx2/suEFz5w+TyuwxZC5 QTIzIWK/IkO5UFiggKA1IE4gbgjwe22xtSM6tYYIUzN/CFFbvT0QaTDwuGDvoBeGPrUA+zYPNvw/ tpI4TzfwNXs4U3/2sLix2YDnEcAAtxOrwHV6eLfmcIXw5ACEENwxWffZ8LcRCOBr3LHEo07BCNH7 xAHBlj7cwjV7tTHdkeSS3kk9Tz5V5zj50GI8ocwTvxVwuKKBoIYQtYZAWGIPoP8/j7ejLAC/QsYR YfHcMbbx77lxgZArsBkgZ8aAzHK4sf8C0fcxD6C5YtgQ3pS1huswenMp8S44VDV/TQ9NhSH7OB85 IyG1hjK/M8801bkg/zVnTAspgOZV1sG+UL+BuLH/QuOA8UhiK+CDUL2AJnD/of/WpynU91GUwCDh /gBIcfZw/7WG9rFMC4Jx5ykn0CuwVnXvHNAroVh6tQBBvqFA8Eoz/3+w0HHgibWGSolABNeT1qNf EBB9kNbARsTrMHltkHn7WSdMC0FYiFwzzUKBkC1wf+3D86qGENBR20FC4ymUb/+HoEfxRbdeIegy wABMCyZx/7hgK7CKMIohZhW3wUDwLAD/s/E8cUpR8+C4oLcAQPBIcT9ZJ02IMXtQH1GbtYZIabt1 wO9wczFWvpLiYSxij/+1AHFSSiHWAFahfADmJazB33SBuXF8ENVvLcIo2oW3svs/Sr4VKQD9tq+3 v7jPud//uuu9D74fvy/AP8FLw2/Ef//Fj8afx6rJv8rPy9/M7wKl/8+/0M/R2dKmVcOBkYfglLEz f9NYeSAi2hAr8HMiwX3CTklHSFQ4ADqjG/nUO0FhtYZp5SdrZdR5LUlyJ9ajeT0hgcL9hjAo07V7 0PRBzcHdMNXx+i2YQWNBUPdR00DgImtiR2gHzYLz4CE6KW7PPf2doD1wl++gEBGpwC1i3QHfgVDZ 8C3C1JTTUWf3AYTA80aQ07EgJt0Bn3ObIIEQfmvTQJoI91B6YX8gMZBl/82gQuOCQuAxFXBWgQ/w hjDMPGdi96CUMkDUQH+QPyZpBtb6kIoAB7gCpn0AAgCnsAMAJgAAAAAAAwAuAAAAAAALAAIAAQAA AAsAIwAAAAAACwApAAEAAAAeAHAAAQAAABYAAABSRTogV2hpcmxwb3dlciBUaGVvcnkAAAADAP0/ 5AQAAEAAOQCQJm7H3+e9AQMA8T8JBAAAHgAeDAEAAAADAAAARVgAAB4AHwwBAAAAMQAAAC9PPVRS QUNURUJFTC9PVT1UQkVMRVhITy9DTj1SRUNJUElFTlRTL0NOPUNSQVdMUwAAAAADABlAAAAAAAMA gBD/////AgH5PwEAAABNAAAAAAAAANynQMjAQhAatLkIACsv4YIBAAAAAAAAAC9PPVRSQUNURUJF TC9PVT1UQkVMRVhITy9DTj1SRUNJUElFTlRTL0NOPUNSQVdMUwAAAAAeAPg/AQAAAAwAAABDbGlm dCBSYXdscwACAfs/AQAAAE0AAAAAAAAA3KdAyMBCEBq0uQgAKy/hggEAAAAAAAAAL089VFJBQ1RF QkVML09VPVRCRUxFWEhPL0NOPVJFQ0lQSUVOVFMvQ049Q1JBV0xTAAAAAB4A+j8BAAAADAAAAENs aWZ0IFJhd2xzAEAABzDgiEbH3+e9AUAACDBQ2XLH3+e9AR4ANRABAAAAQgAAADw0MEMzRUYzQUE5 QTBEMTExQjI0QzAwODA1RjMxRERDMzFCNTQxREAyMDktMTEzLTE3LTI2Lmluc3luYy5uZXQ+AAAA AwAGEKJ+/REDAAcQXAgAAAMAEBAAAAAAAwAREAAAAAAeAAgQAQAAAGUAAABNSVRDSEVMTEpPTkVT V1JPVEUqKipJRlRIRVBPU0lUSU9OT0ZUSEVNT09OSVNJR05PUkVELFdFV0VJR0gqTU9SRSpBVE5J R0hULERVRVRPVEhFRkFDVFRIQVRUSEVTVU5BTkRUAAAAAAMADTT9PwAAAgEUNAEAAAAQAAAAVJSh wCl/EBulhwgAKyolFx4APQABAAAABQAAAFJFOiAAAAAAjPI= ------ =_NextPart_000_01BDE7B6.34CC24A0-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 24 11:58:15 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA02508; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 11:53:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 11:53:15 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980924120734.00cdcb00 spectre.mitre.org> References: <19980923122805.29983.qmail hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 08:51:50 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Bouyancy Question Resent-Message-ID: <"vONSh2.0._c.QKf2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22688 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Robert - > I know what you want, but the tradeoff is > between low maintenance and self powered. I want a cheap low maintenance lung powered 10' rig. :) UW archaeology, treasure hunting, pool and boat maintenance would all benefit greatly. > Using the right type of blower, you could > build a system that worked effectively down > to about 50 feet. But here is the catch. As > you change depth, the air pressure needs to > change as well. Right. Here's an edited part of a response I made in e-mail to John Berry: -------------------------------------------- As I said in another post, the force curves for an air driven motor and an air pump do not match in a way that the force will balance: when you compress air (the pump), the opposing force is low at the start of a stroke, and high at the end. On the other hand, decompression (the motor) starts out high and goes down. Simple springs won't help balance these, because a graph of the force during compression and decompression is a curve, and the curves don't match any way you try to fit them. Worse, the curve shapes vary quite a bit with depth, even just to 10'. The only answer I can see is in either: gearing or otherwise leveraging the one against the other - rendered devilishly difficult since these curves vary so much at different depths, or: in accumulating the energy in some way. Picture a CV transmission of cone shaped eccentric (cam-like) gears which slide to mesh at different ratios against each other depending on depth for the former case. Sheesh. When my active interest in this ended, the last device I had drawn was a motor and pump linked through a flywheel, an example of the latter case. I think that's almost practical, but a flywheels need nice bearings and linkages to nice pumps, and those things don't last long in a harsh marine environment and therefore defeat the main design criteria: KISS. -------------------------------------------- > Even if you put the > regulator in your mouth, there is lung > volume to contend with. Adding air to this > volume can't be pumped by the lungs so you > have to use some other source of power. > Now you could run everything using a > battery driven motor, and recover the > energy required to go deeper when you go > up--remember that during a "normal" dive > you will be constantly changing depth by > about 4-6 feet. By now, you can see how > complex this gets. So could be done, but > difficult to maintain. In a flywheel rig, this energy from bobbing up and down (or passing swells overhead if you're pegged at some depth yourself) would be tapped, and breathing resistance should fall accordingly. But the main energy source would be lung power through some acceptable level of breathing resistance. I calculated that such resistance to power a fairly efficient (I think I used 80% - probably optimistic) machine would be found at a max depth of 10-13' based on snorkel depth tests I did in a pool. 20% of 10' is 2'. In a practical device, that might be split into a 1.5 feet equivalent of intake resistance, and .5 feet exhaust resistance. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 24 12:06:46 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA05435; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 12:02:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 12:02:28 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199809241551.KAA04319 smtp.jump.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 09:01:05 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Whirlpower Theory Resent-Message-ID: <"dBtFF.0.qK1.3Tf2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22689 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mitchell - > ***{If the position of the moon is ignored, > we weigh *more* at night, due to the fact > that the sun and the earth are both beneath > our feet, and thus are pulling in the same > direction. We weigh less during the day, > when the sun is overhead and thus pulling > us up, while the earth is below and pulling > us down. --Mitchell Jones}*** Menehune only built the fishponds at night, and only during the full moon - or maybe it was new moon, I forget. Something to do with the moon. Anyway, if they didn't get it done in one night, they gave up. Moon phase might have had something to do with the weight of the thousands of rocks they had to move out over the reef to build the walls of these extensive pens, some of which still exist in functional condition today. You wouldn't think the difference on the dead weight of a mass of a few hundred pounds would be a measurable fraction of a gram of difference, but that might not be the whole picture. Something's missing. Too many anomalous megalithic structures around the ancient world. Must be the chants. Oh-eee-o. Eeeee-o. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 24 12:36:49 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA18029; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 12:33:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 12:33:29 -0700 Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 15:25:05 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: Rick Monteverde cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: lung.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"-ln2m.0.cP4.8wf2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22690 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: There are permeable membranes.... about 8 feet square support person... first reported in 70s... silicone polymers. You have to have flowing water.... or keep moving. J From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 24 12:57:31 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA24717; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 12:52:44 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 12:52:44 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 15:02:56 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: An Atomic Barbecue Resent-Message-ID: <"oulG8.0._16.BCg2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22691 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Hal, This afternoon, I was in the midst of email correspondence and, for some reason, I thought of your earlier comment with respect to the simple & crude analogy of the gasoline-soaked-log --- You stated before: >Therefore, in your analogy, you may be lighting off your gasoline soaked log >with an atomic bomb, therefore NOT getting more out than in, but we only see >the spark and think otherwise. It would seem with respect to this simple analogy, Hal, that EVEN IF YOU DO LIGHT OFF THAT GASOLINE LOG WITH AN ATOMIC BOMB, you will *STILL* get "Greater External Energy Output Than External Energy Input"! For one brief -- perhaps millionth-of-a-micro-second -- after you explode that atomic bomb you will have the energy released by the bomb PLUS the energy released by the "gasoline soaked log" being "ignited" by that bomb... Consequently, the _total_ external energy output released will STILL be ever-so-slightly measurably greater than the original external energy input of the atomic bomb. I only request that you please do not ask me to provide you with these measurements! :-) Best regards, Evan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 24 19:23:57 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA32195; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 19:21:06 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 19:21:06 -0700 Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 19:22:22 -0700 Message-Id: <199809250222.TAA18021 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: lung.... Resent-Message-ID: <"Q12kG1.0.ms7.Iul2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22692 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: OK, here is a design: A, solar panels for power. B, a double, positive displacement pump, passive powered. C, a diaphragm pump, electric powered. D, a double hose. E, a small tank with regulator, just enough to last a few minutes, ie, whatever surfacing time is required in the event that the system goes out and you have to swim to the surface, you don't want to get the bends. Make a small float with the solar panels horizontal. On it, you small diaphragm pump works continuously to top off the pressure at a level greater than maximum depth. Basically, once topped off, the pump doesn't need to do much at all. The double sided positive displacement pump allows the pressure from the exhaust to drive a shaft, and that drives the other side of the pump to pressurize the fresh air side. One of the hoses is fresh air delivery, the other is exhaust air. The entire system is pressurized to bottom depth pressure, so the work derived from the exhaust going out of the pump is ideally equal to the work needed to pressurize the fresh air. Thus, the work derived from the divers exhaust, and body heat, increases the pressure on the exhaust side slightly and helps to increase the exhaust air work reclaimed. The small diaphragm pump thus only has to make up a small amount of lost air, or work lost due to the working parts friction etc. Ergo, the solar panel requirements ought to be small. Probably production cost, around $100. Probably retail price, around $500. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 24 20:32:23 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA28871; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 20:30:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 20:30:42 -0700 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980924182947.00d015ac popd.ix.netcom.com> X-Sender: atech popd.ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 11:29:47 -0700 To: freenrg-l eskimo.com From: "Dennis C. Lee" Subject: Re: The Brick Wall - My first poem Cc: Alan.CHEAH adecco.com, ahannan@MIT.EDU, deadnuts@deadnuts.com, lupem world.std.com, peg@wintergreen.com, bso@acm.org, claudeg world.std.com, clsmith@darwin.bu.edu, ccantor@sequenom.com, 76753.3551 compuserve.com, eben@ergeng.com, ehill@world.std.com, leep world.std.com, ejp@world.std.com, wordpros@inforamp.net, moy ziplink.net, gjcheah@guybutler.com, wellenstein binah.cc.brandeis.edu, hic@world.std.com, jkokor alum.mit.edu, Bensinger@bdhepa.hep.brandeis.edu, Jim Hile , jim@msri.org, discjt@servtech.com, John Ranta , jsearl@tako.demon.co.uk, joshprokop worldnet.att.net, KeelyNet@DallasTexas.net, Leonard Dvorson , atc@wit.edu, ohl@world.std.com, pgm world.std.com, rsmith@itiip.com, raddison@world.std.com, 71022.3001 compuserve.com, 73577.123@compuserve.com, thiahadge@aol.com, tcapizzi world.std.com, tom.duff@poweroasis.com, TAFAUL@aol.com, vortex-L eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"dSCFD2.0.037.Xvm2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22693 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:51 PM 9/23/98 PDT, you wrote: >I don't think I understand the poem...can u please explain to me? >Thank You > >Yours sincerely, >Chen The Brick Wall - My First Poem v2 Imagine a big brick wall Are there a few bricks missing One will look at a slot and say That's not a brick wall One will look at a brick and say That is a brick wall One will turn up a light and say They really aren't missing Dennis C. Lee - September 23, 1998 1. The flame wars on Vortex-l these past few weeks was the inspiration to write it. 2. It could also be interpreted as team work. 3. To be right do you also have to look right? etc. I think that this is an example of objective art and it depends on ones level of development as to how many levels of interpretation you will find. Of course the day after I write the piece, I get the decision by the Board of Bar Overseers to keep a file closed. This is in spite of much research with references. The whole battle involves getting the paper work that was signed by the landlord 25 years ago. After paying off the 1% government loan, the landlord now wants to eventually disperse our art community by raising rent levels. All we want is to see original agreements. Might as well enjoy the process of conflict. It seems that this is what life is about at this time. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 24 22:29:57 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA01673; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 22:26:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 22:26:15 -0700 Message-ID: <360B29DC.5BA8 keelynet.com> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 00:27:56 -0500 From: "Jerry W. Decker" Reply-To: jdecker keelynet.com Organization: KeelyNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: KeelyNet DallasTexas.net CC: freenrg-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: PowerBall Pellets Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"WljDU3.0.yP.sbo2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22694 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Folks! This was shared yesterday by a friend, it deals with hydride pellets for the controlled release of hydrogen from water to use as fuel, check it out; http://www.powerball.net/inside/index.html -- Jerry Wayne 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 Fri Sep 25 01:58:40 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA07863; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 01:57:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 01:57:40 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199809250222.TAA18021 Au.oro.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 22:56:30 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: lung.... Resent-Message-ID: <"qMf252.0.nw1.3ir2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22695 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ross - > The double sided positive displacement > pump allows the pressure from the exhaust > to drive a shaft, and that drives the other > side of the pump to pressurize the fresh air > side. That's the main problem right there. One can't drive the other without some sort of matching transmission or flywheel, and it increases the complexity quite a bit. A gas powered hookah rig or just scuba is more attractive at the price point you mentioned. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 04:03:28 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA21302; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 04:02:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 04:02:42 -0700 Message-ID: <01BDE84A.9EFC4A00 209-113-17-144.insync.net> From: Allen Nelson To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: lung.... Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 06:04:05 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BDE84A.9F0D12E0" Resent-Message-ID: <"LggHm.0.lC5.HXt2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22696 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ------ =_NextPart_000_01BDE84A.9F0D12E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ross, great design! One small correction... You said: <> Actually, the pressure would be the same but the higher temps would = increase the volume of the air slightly. The net result is the same = however... more work output (slightly). Allen Nelson ------ =_NextPart_000_01BDE84A.9F0D12E0 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IhcLAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQmAAQAhAAAAM0M3QjFCQTBFMjUzRDIxMTgxMzQwMDgwNUYzMURE QzMA/wYBBYADAA4AAADOBwkAGQAGAAQABQAFAAsBASCAAwAOAAAAzgcJABkABgAEAAUABQALAQEE kAYAxAEAAAEAAAARAAAAAwAAMAAAAAALAA8OAAAAAAIB/w8BAAAARwAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1u AN0BD1QCAAAAACd2b3J0ZXgtbEBlc2tpbW8uY29tJwBTTVRQAHZvcnRleC1sQGVza2ltby5jb20A AB4AAjABAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAAHgADMAEAAAAUAAAAdm9ydGV4LWxAZXNraW1vLmNvbQACAfYP AQAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAwAVDAEAAAACAQswAQAAABkAAABTTVRQOlZPUlRFWC1MQEVTS0lNTy5DT00A AAAAHgABMAEAAAAWAAAAJ3ZvcnRleC1sQGVza2ltby5jb20nAAAAHgAgOgEAAAAWAAAAJ3ZvcnRl eC1sQGVza2ltby5jb20nAAAACwBAOgEAOiADAP4PBgAAAAMAADkAAAAAAwD/XwAAAAADAP1fAQAA AB4A9l8BAAAAFAAAAHZvcnRleC1sQGVza2ltby5jb20AAgH3XwEAAABFAAAAAAAAAIErH6S+oxAZ nW4A3QEPVAIAAAAAdm9ydGV4LWxAZXNraW1vLmNvbQBTTVRQAHZvcnRleC1sQGVza2ltby5jb20A AAAAA18BDYAEAAIAAAACAAIAAQSAAQANAAAAUkU6IGx1bmcuLi4uAF8DAQOQBgAsCwAAKwAAAAMA NgAAAAAAAwAGgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAUoUAALcNAAAeACaACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAA RgAAAABUhQAAAQAAAAQAAAA4LjAAAwAngAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAAYUAAAAAAAALAAGA CCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAADhQAAAAAAAAsAMIAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAA6FAAAA AAAAAwADgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAEIUAAAAAAAADADGACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAA AAARhQAAAAAAAAMAM4AIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAABiFAAAAAAAAHgBCgAggBgAAAAAAwAAA AAAAAEYAAAAANoUAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAB4AQ4AIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAADeFAAABAAAA AQAAAAAAAAAeAESACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAA4hQAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAgEJEAEAAAB0 BQAAcAUAAKgMAABMWkZ19VLxSAMACgByY3BnMTI1cjIMYGMxAzABBwtgbpEOEDAzMw8WZmUPkk8B 9wKkA2MCAGNoCsBzhGV0AtFwcnEyAACSKgqhbm8SUCAwAdCFAdA2D6AwNTA0FCHzAdAUEDR9B20C gwBQA9T7Ef8TC2IT4RRQE7IY9BTQrwcTAoACkQjmOwlvMBrf+mUOMDUcCh0hHN8d6Rv0/x4SHH8g TyANH48dvxwPEGD8Mjgl2ibxJq8nuRv0J+K/Jk8qHyndKV8njytUOQ5QHy6kMAEoIzAAAoJzdHnq bAeQaAngdAAAE1AD8FBkY3RsCrFcMlhhmGRqdTFwBRBnaAVCOxYyDAFjCcAyYAMwc258ZXgXMAew BbAAwAJzc7EAUHNiMhRQMWBhE/D0XGsJ4HALkDI/MqMIYOsykAuAZTGgdjlgAUAzm78MMDRkKAA3 QASgC4BnJ/HpNOZiYRcQZAIgNaA1Rucx0DOQO5EgMTEzDlA2n/83rzi/AFE5/ACgNG48fz2G/zEk D8A+jz+fQK8OUDnvQw/bRB89szMCghMQYzZgS6GTM5A9sHRpOZAgRAEQqGF1bAVAUArAYQnA4GFw aCBGAiE2JCVA6GZpLQ+QOAFAOTBQM+tHDzKjYgsgcglQUlIWoNlSUnc0JUEXAHAB0E1yfzO/Sp9L pk/QTpAFEAIwLUNPMANhOiBUb1ewUyh1YmoFkHRXsERh6HRlOjYkNk//UQ9SH/9TL1Q5McA9ow4h S6E6tg5Qm1VvVn5SOYEXASBIPZH7BJA2JDdZb1p/W49cnTkPL12/D5BpcAjQYgqwdDj/SfoPVEYQ X79gxmoAYdALULx5L09AXLALEWJFczYk/ygAYz9kT2VfXK9UT2tfbG/vbXVX0ld0WKk5b78zPwMw HWmzOXOfdK96oERvY/51B4ACMAXQTwAaAXjSeDD3eHBxUQGAblgwAGAJ8E2g730AAgE14F5SZQDw fQAxgJJwHoBcdgiQd2sLgP5ka0CAogTwB0AQYQFADgDvcSI9goIFAhBvBUIXIRLyDVjAbQtRWMAg Qzpc6lxXAG9O4W1PMAMQB5BNhLBNDeADYHNvAYAgrk8BIA3gf/BchmZFAMD1AxAuS3B0fdAXEHhw NSHdZ3J4RjGIIk40YwMgEvPzAIAFkGx2QaFG0A5wNeD/igIBkAAgipKA8X1BAcGKAT8W4A9wAABG 0AzQAZAgLv8aEon4DlCKsk5weMCLL4w/f41PD8BG0AWBju+P/5EPbLtrQEbQbI6vk2+UdSmNfI8l QJJPly+UZGIgKAKR/5hPikNZUJX/mr+bz5zfinD/YxCeIor/n4+gn418KACeL/+jr6S/pc+KcHgA oq+oP6lPv6pUCvkDMHgveT96zXsIANkEECwgCcFYsCABAACQMGduISCGUDVgIHNfNfEDIAWhGvCw QGkCIIWdCoVZCGC0kAtwZDoKhX+vFK/fsO8FQAjBNPI1oDxmPBoiufRUaLGAs1B06THQIHcFsGuz wQUQZ9DfNSADUrtjPbBh8iA1cBbgn7GBs1AAcDUgBuBkeT1y/73hC4AFAD2QFxAEILtyF3D9B5Bz CHATgAIgu2O9hbSQ/7fQtIFncLHRbTC+AzHQuBD9v4FvvvfAmwtwBcC7s7UxmwthB4BkjWC5xz4+ ApCvtr+3z7jeCoVBx7B1tMH+ebtUv+e7sE5gvjHDhEZQ7weAvkBnULtjaLHBBJC7YO+EEQQgy3TD G3YG8H0hwGDuZrtjxGLBti60QLsQE4C/NWAFQL/xTmIEAMv4aMdw/WHiLtMAtEAEYMtDu9FnQcpw zKEowbYpLgqFyZZXtNAJ8AexbIYQbsZ2fQYA10DXcAMAJgAAAAAAAwAuAAAAAAALAAIAAQAAAAsA IwAAAAAACwApAAEAAAACATEAAQAAABMBAABQQ0RGRUIwOQABAAIAdQAAAAAAAAA4obsQBeUQGqG7 CAArKlbCAABFTVNNREIuRExMAAAAAAAAAAAbVfogqmYRzZvIAKoAL8RaDAAAAFRCRUxIT1UAL289 VHJhY3RlYmVsL291PVRCRUxFWEhPL2NuPVJlY2lwaWVudHMvY249Q1Jhd2xzAC4AAAAAAAAAkXyD FmLC0RGyVwCAXzHdwwEAQMPvOqmg0RGyTACAXzHdwwAAAAQ5tQAAAAAAAC4AAAAAAAAAkXyDFmLC 0RGyVwCAXzHdwwEAQMPvOqmg0RGyTACAXzHdwwAAAAQ5tgAAEAAAADx7G6DiU9IRgTQAgF8x3cMN AAAAUkU6IGx1bmcuLi4uAAAeAHAAAQAAAA0AAABSRTogbHVuZy4uLi4AAAAAAgFxAAEAAAAWAAAA Ab3odIYnk4Bd5FQ8EdKxHgBgCK/37gAAQAA5AMDt6DV06L0BAwDxPwkEAAAeAB4MAQAAAAMAAABF WAAAHgAfDAEAAAAxAAAAL089VFJBQ1RFQkVML09VPVRCRUxFWEhPL0NOPVJFQ0lQSUVOVFMvQ049 Q1JBV0xTAAAAAAMAGUAAAAAAAwD9P+QEAAADAIAQ/////wIB+T8BAAAATQAAAAAAAADcp0DIwEIQ GrS5CAArL+GCAQAAAAAAAAAvTz1UUkFDVEVCRUwvT1U9VEJFTEVYSE8vQ049UkVDSVBJRU5UUy9D Tj1DUkFXTFMAAAAAHgD4PwEAAAAMAAAAQ2xpZnQgUmF3bHMAAgH7PwEAAABNAAAAAAAAANynQMjA QhAatLkIACsv4YIBAAAAAAAAAC9PPVRSQUNURUJFTC9PVT1UQkVMRVhITy9DTj1SRUNJUElFTlRT L0NOPUNSQVdMUwAAAAAeAPo/AQAAAAwAAABDbGlmdCBSYXdscwBAAAcwwAe4NXTovQFAAAgwsJHw NXTovQEeADUQAQAAAEIAAAA8NDBDM0VGM0FBOUEwRDExMUIyNEMwMDgwNUYzMUREQzMxQjU0MjNA MjA5LTExMy0xNy0yNi5pbnN5bmMubmV0PgAAAAMABhCgwvvkAwAHEFABAAADABAQAAAAAAMAERAA AAAAHgAIEAEAAABlAAAAUk9TUyxHUkVBVERFU0lHTk9ORVNNQUxMQ09SUkVDVElPTllPVVNBSUQ6 PDxUSFVTLFRIRVdPUktERVJJVkVERlJPTVRIRURJVkVSU0VYSEFVU1QsQU5EQk9EWUhFQVQsSU5D UgAAAAADAA00/T8AAAIBFDQBAAAAEAAAAFSUocApfxAbpYcIACsqJRceAD0AAQAAAAUAAABSRTog AAAAAGAt ------ =_NextPart_000_01BDE84A.9F0D12E0-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 04:07:00 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA22892; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 04:06:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 04:06:11 -0700 Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 04:06:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809251106.EAA27261 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "Jeannette Clark" Reply-To: "Jeannette Clark" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Whirlpower Resent-Message-ID: <"iWzcR2.0.bb5.Xat2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22697 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Everyone, I took some time to let this sink in a little and hoped there might be a little discussion. I am glad to see there was. It seems to me with a little time and some analysis of Whirlpower an answer can definately be found, one way or another. The space science shows a lot about this subject is not understood, science doesn't understand the hurricane, and they have had lots of time and money to work on these things. My approach to this subject matter is not scientific but dream inspired. Eistein said to the first scientist that came to see him after he sent his Relativity Theory off in the mail, "this is the first time I have talked to a "real scientist" about this." The scientist said, "have you looked in the mirror lately?" Einstein did not think he was a scientist, he was a college dropout. Ross wants me to bring my quotes to the list. It would be very easy for him to go to my discussion board and read the transcript. I hope some of you have. It is at; The link to ABC is dead but I have posted the transcript just below it. Probably the most important part is about how 90% of what is going on in the spiral galaxies Vera studied cannot be explained by any previous science. This is an extremely large percentage. And I think there are many who would like to consider alternative explainations. I believe the spiral galaxy, the hurricane, and the whirlpool are all related and understanding will unlock the mystery of motion and the Holy Grail of science. I think Whirlpower Theory is the Holy Grail. Just because I am a poor nobody and don't know how to properly announce my theory to the scientific communtiy doesn't mean what I have to say is not important. And since science can't answer the riddle, I think it is right for a regular citizen to try and speak. Many people have tried to put me down for this but I will not give up. Not as long as this computer holds up. Without it, I doubt I would have ever found a way to have a voice. I am hopeing this list can help me with this and help me find the people who would be interested that are in the scientific community and have a real voice in the advancement of science. All the things I am saying here were posted before the news came out. Ross seemed to imply I read about it and then came up with my theory. That is not the case and I can very easily prove it and have a complete online archive dated and witnessed by hundreds of people to back me up. The timing was more the other way I would post something then something very similar would come out in the news within a few months. This has gone on for over a year now. As to the question about a patent on Aqualung, the answer is no, but I would like to apply and get it into the marketplace. I have no money and I cannot start up a buisness. I am disabeled. I don't want any sympathy just help with my inventions I have spent 20 years working on. David Dennard From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 08:41:36 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA13412; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 08:37:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 08:37:54 -0700 Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 08:39:14 -0700 Message-Id: <199809251539.IAA26041 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; Whirlpower Resent-Message-ID: <"daHSC1.0.PH3.HZx2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22698 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: OK, David didn't want to do it because it is easier to just claim things are wierd. Here is a quote from his own site: FORREST SAWYER And joining us now from our Boston bureau is Michael Guillen. And Michael, of all the very strange ideas that you were kicking around on tonight's report, the one that I really am having trouble with is the notion that the universe could somehow be younger than some of the stars that are in it. Now, how in the world do you do that? MICHAEL GUILLEN It's pretty weird. My guess, Forrest, is that we're going to find out that, indeed, the universe is accelerating, as we've recently discovered, which means that the universe has been expanding slower in the past than it is now, which means it's taken longer to get where it is now than we are giving it credit for, which means that it is older than we are giving it credit for. FORREST SAWYER Is it possible as they're sorting through all of these very complicated calculations that they've maybe put one number in the wrong place or something and they're kind of going down the wrong road because the calculations are wrong? So, you see that the recent supernova studies point in the direction fo what Guth is calling an anti gravitational force. What he means is, the cosmological constant is not zero. This is a term in GR that has been left there, and which Einstein called the greatest blunder of his life. But it turns out, that the term is indeed a part of our actual universe to the surprise of everyone. So, with that realization, there is no more wierdness with the stars being older than the universe because the universe is older than previous, incorrect models had predicted. So that may seem strange that there is some reason that everything is being pushed apart in defiance to our belief that gravity is a pulling force, but that is what is going on. The only wierdness that is left is the dark matter issue. First, a mis direction in the article. It is NOT known that dark matter is "Completely Invisible" as was stated. It has not been observed. It could be rocks, planets like Jupiter, dust, gas clouds, neutrinos, or IMO, plain old empty space. It is so far invisible to our telescopes, which is what they were being dramatic about. Second, if our gravitational theories are incorrect, if stars do not gravitate the same way as do planets, then it is possible that there is no dark matter out there at all as I have said before. Milgrom and Bekenstein showed that if you modify our gravitational equations slightly, the entire dark matter problem goes away entirely. But, there is no reason to expect that we should need to modify our equations, according to main stream thinking. So the main stream scientists think that dark matter must be out there because they think their equations are correct. If the equations are wrong, then poof, no more dark matter problem. IMO, the equations are wrong, so to me, the dark matter problem is the result of dogma being unwilling to consider that the theories are incorrect on a subtle but important point. There is a difference between the gravitation of stars, and planets. The difference is due to the fact that stars, "convert mass into energy" in their fusion reactions. If you work with multi dimensional strings as models for sub atomic matter, then by taking three of those dimension as spatial, and one as time, and the rest as theoretical technique, then you wind up with a pulsating physical region in the universe sort of like a pulsating sphere. This is like a model studied by Kelvin in the 1870s and it is like the model I work with. The problem, compared to today's thinking, is that "mass" is the amount of medium associated with the resonance. Ergo, fusion reactions where mass "disappears" has to be thought of as instead, reactions where some of the medium of the ocean in which the resonance existed, that was previously associated with the original geometry of the resonance (say D), that was emitted during the fusion process that changed the geometry of the resonance to He3 for example in DD -- He3 n. For the particle models, you are forced to think that the mass disappeared. For the resonance models, and string theories are in this genre, you are forced to adopt that instead, the medium of the universe that gives rise to mass, and which is massive, was emitted. But that leads to the result that you now have more "ocean" to swim around in. Thus, space expands out of stars in a very real sense of the statement. Working with it is not simple, neither is understanding what I just said. However, once you recognize that process, you can see that you would have to modify gravitation in the identical manner as did Milgrom and Bekenstein. Thus, Dark matter is not a real problem at all IMO. It is a problem because we fail to grasp the difference between particle models of physics, and resonance models of physics. It is a failure expect that just as the earth was not the center of it's universe, neither are "particles". QM today treats particles as though they are, and fails to account for the incident wave energy coming from the deep universe. To me, it is very simple. But then I am writing a book on why we should adopt the Milgrom Bekenstein modification to gravitation, and a lot of other things that eliminate the wierdness. Galaxies of stars, however, are different from whirlpools in that they are fusing large amounts of matter, and releasing huge amounts of aether. If whirlpools were releasing aether in proportionately large quantities, then one might look for similarities. But as far as I know David doesn't know anything about the details of hurricanes, only that people say they are wierd and so he says they are wierd. Sure they are, but list the details. What have you observed a hurricane do that was wierd? How fast were the winds, and how fast did you expect them to be? What shape were the wall clouds, and what shape did you expect them to be? You can't just claim things are wierd without stating specific phenomena or observations along side your expectations. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 08:51:24 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA15085; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 08:47:04 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 08:47:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 08:39:12 -0700 Message-Id: <199809251539.IAA26038 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: lung.... Resent-Message-ID: <"qL96d3.0.dh3.rhx2s" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22699 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Ross, great design! One small correction... >You said: ><> > >Actually, the pressure would be the same but the higher temps would increase the volume of the air slightly. The net result is the same however... more work output (slightly). When a diver exhales, he can use the force of his lungs to increase the pressure slightly. This wouldn't take very much energy, and it is already what happens because you blow air our against the regulator valves. So you would have the extra pressure in addition to the extra volume. The point being, you have a system where you could get the air to flow around in a circle without any energy if there were no viscous losses (which there are). But you also have a system where the diver is adding a small amount of work to the exhaust side. If you added an accumulator on that side, you could make the thing like bag pipes sort of. Also, you could have the double sided pump down with the diver, then the high pressure side of the system is right near the diver, and ergo you would retain some of the advantage of the heated air as it drives the double sided pump. So divers mask, in and out pipes like a normal regulator set up. Then, two storage tanks, the double positive displacement pump, and the two hoses to the top. Actually, you still would need the solar panel and first pump at the top, so you may as well stick with the original I guess. If the depth is limited so that the bends is not a factor (ie unlimited bottom time at that depth and ability to swim straight up to the top), then you could eliminate the storage tanks and just go with the two pumps, solar collector, float, and hose. Costs are coming down. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 09:06:35 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA28623; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 09:04:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 09:04:42 -0700 Message-ID: <002301bde89e$3de77e20$a5b4bfa8 default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Cc: "George" Subject: Microwave Question Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:04:13 -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: <"ZlBZ73.0.s-6.Oyx2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22700 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex I wish to procure an $86.00 microwave oven 2.45 Gigahertz at about 750 watts and use it for some experiments. The Oscillator (Magnetron or Klystron?)feeds the 0.5 ft^3 oven (manual timer)through a plastic "window" about 3" x 4" on the side of the chamber. What would be the proper way to couple to this window with a probe/loop and feed the energy out through a coax fed through a hole in the other side of the oven where it would feed a Resonant Cavity or such? All Inputs/Outputs Welcome. :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 09:40:51 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA19612; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 09:38:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 09:38:20 -0700 Message-Id: <199809251638.LAA24936 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 11:38:09 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Roger Hastings Paper on Newman Motor Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id JAA19543 Resent-Message-ID: <"9AWOg2.0.Ko4.xRy2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22701 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On the off chance that someone in the group is interested in on-topic material, here is a paper that I came across the other day. --Mitchell Jones ****************************************** Dr. Roger Hastings, PhD. Principal Physicist, Unisys Corporation Former Associate Professor of Physics North Dakota State University >PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF ONE NEWMAN MOTOR > >This document compiles and analyzes the results of several experiments >performed on the Newman Motor. The results of the experimental work show >that this motor operates with energy output far in excess of energy input. >This work is intended to characterize the motor, and to organize the >experimental results. It is hoped that the document will serve as a guide >in the development of the mathematical theory which explains the Newman >Motor. > >I. Mechanical Energy Output > >A. Test against a d.c. Permanent Magnet Motor/Rated 80% Efficient. > >In this experiment, eight fresh 1.5 Volt alkaline batteries were connected >to an 80% rated efficient d.c. motor. The motor turned an oil pump at >about 1 Hz. The motor ran for 6 minutes, and the final battery voltage was >about 60% of the starting voltage. > >Alkaline batteries were used because battery performance curves were >available from the manufacturer. One such chart is plotted in Fig. 1. The >performance of the d.c. motor is verified by the chart, which predicts that >the batteries, when initially drained at 2 amps, will last 6 min. The >measured motor drain under load was near 2 amps. > > 2.0!* <------ Operating Point of d.c. motor > ! > ! > 1.8! > ! > ! > 1.6! > ! > ! * > 1.4! > ! > ! > 1.2! > ! > ! > 1.0! > ! > ! > 0.8! > ! > ! * > 0.6! > ! > ! > 0.4! * > ! ___ Operating >pt./Newman Motor > ! / > 0.2! X > ! * > ! > 0!_______________________________________________________________________ > 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 > >Vertical axis ---- Starting Drain (Amps) >Horizontal axis ---- Time to Reach 60% of Fresh Battery Voltage (hours) > >FIGURE 1: Eveready Alkaline Battery Performance Curve >Starting Current Drain VS Time to Reach 60% of Fresh Battery Voltage > >[Any typographical errors in this document are a result of the typist >preparing this in ASCII format; any positional and/or notational >irregularities in the graphs/formulae depicted in this document may be due >to transmission between platforms. Wherever possible, words are used >instead of mathematical symbols to reduce the incidence of such notational >irregularities.] > > >The above results allow us to estimate the power consumed by the oil pump. >We find: > > initial pump output power >___________________________ equals 0.8 >initial battery input power > >pump output equals 0.8 times 2 amps times 12 volts equals 19 Watts > > >The same pump was connected to the Newman Motor (with a 90# permanent >magnet rotor) so that the pump again ran at near 1 Hz. Therefore, the pump >was consuming the same power in this experiment. Eight fresh batteries >were connected to the Newman Motor. The batteries were drained to about >60% of their starting voltage after seven (7) hours! Although the input >current to the Newman Motor follows a complicated waveform, we may estimate >the initial average input current from the performance curve (fig. 1). >Using 0.2 amps at 12 volts we find: > >Initial Newman Motor Input equals 2.4 Watts. > >Since the output is consuming 19 Watts, we have: > >Newman Motor Efficiency equals 19 divided by 2.4 times 100 percent equals >800 percent. > >At this point we note that the intrinsic efficiency of the Newman Motor >could be greatly increased. As designed now, the motor has a tremendous >leakage flux, and extreme mechanical losses. An efficiently designed >Newman Motor would certainly have three times the efficiency quoted above, >and perhaps ten times (8,000 percent). > > >B. Static Torque Test > >The output shafts of the d.c. motor and Newman Motor were connected in turn >to a scale via a pulley and belt. The d.c. motor pulled a maximum of 1.5 >lbs., while the Newman motor pulled 13 lbs. At maximum load the d.c. motor >consumed about 24 Watts while the Newman Motor consumed only 2.4 Watts. > > > Newman Motor 13 > Static Torque Ratio: ------------ equals --- equals 8.7 > d.c. motor 1.5 > > > Newman Power > Input Energy Ratio: ---------------- equals 0.1 > d.c. motor power > > >If we define a motor performance parameter under static loads by the ratio >of maximum torque output to the input energy drain, we find that this >number is 87 times larger for the Newman Motor than for the d.c. permanent >magnet motor. > > >C. Battery Lifetime Tests > >It has become apparent that the batteries powering the Newman motor outlive >the expectations of the manufacturer. In this test, 124 old alkaline >batteries were used to power the (90 lb. rotor) motor. The batteries read >2/3 of their fresh voltage value at the outset of the experiment. It was >found that the 90 lb cylindrical rotor is spun up to 6 Hz. in 21 sec. when >the batteries are connected to the motor. The voltage drops from 125 V. to >70 V. when the batteries are connected, and remains at 70 V. when the rotor >runs at speed. The minimum power supplied by the batteries is therefore >equal to the power required to spin up the rotor. > > This is: > > P equals one-half I W(squared) /t > > where > > t equals time to spin up rotor equals 21 sec. > > W equals angular speed equals 2 X * X 6 Hz. > > R[squared] L[squared] > I equals M ( ------- plus ------- ) > 4 12 > > M equals rotor mass equals 41 kg. > > R equals rotor radius (apr.) equals .08m. > > L equals rotor length (apr.) equals .31m. > > >This yields a minimum energy required to keep the rotor spinning at 6 Hz. >of 13 Watts. Therefore the batteries must be supplying at least 13/70 >equals 190 m amps. As a separate estimate it was found that a constant >drain of 300 m amps. through a resistor drops the battery voltage from 125 >V to 70 V. Consulting the battery charts we find that a fresh battery with >a starting drain of 150 m amps. (100 m amps. when V equals 2/3 starting >voltage) will drop from 2/3 to 1/2 of its starting voltage in a few hours. >If the batteries began at 2/3 of their fresh voltage under a drain of 250 m >amps. they would be very dead in two hours. > >The Newman Motor has been run for between one and four hours per day for a >total of ten hours. The batteries began at 2/3 of their fresh voltage, and >after the ten hours the voltage had not dropped perceptibly. Joseph Newman >intends to continue running the motor a few hours per day to test the >limits of his motor. Here again, the mechanical energy consumed by the >spinning rotor is far in excess of the maximum possible electrical energy >which could be supplied by the batteries (according to the charts). An >efficiency near 1000 percent is indicated by the experiment to date. > >THREE WEEKS LATER: > >On this date the old batteries have worn down to a point at which they will >not even run a one and one-half V. small toy motor. Yet when they are >connected to the Newman motor, the 90 lb. rotor is spun up to 4.5 Hz in >about 20 seconds! > > >II. Electrical Energy Output > >The Newman Motor generates electrical energy by induction. The relevant >experiments have been documented and indicate an efficiency of about 400 >percent in the generation of electrical power. Experiments have since been >run in which mechanical energy was measured via measurement of the >frequency at which the motor runs while delivering a measured torque. >Electrical energy was simultaneously generated, and the sum of electrical >and mechanical energy was roughly twice the energy obtained when only >electrical energy was generated. In this experiment an accurate measure of >the input power was not made. Instead, batteries were used and the time >required to drain the batteries to a given voltage was measured. It was >hoped that the battery charts could be used to estimate the input power. >The result was too close to 100% efficiency to rely upon the accuracy of >the charts. It should be noted that the measured output energy did not >include losses in the belt used to transmit torque. In addition, the whole >measurement apparatus was set into motion by the magnetic force during >rotation. > > >III. Static Measurements > >Joseph Newman has made measurements of the static torque generated by his >600 pound magnet at various voltages. These results agree with theoretical >predictions based upon measurements of the magnetic moment of the magnet. >The predicted torque is: > > __` __` __` > ¬/´ equals M times H , > >and the maximum torque is MH. The static field generated by the coil is: > > > N I > H equals --- > L > > > N equals no. turns > > > L equals coil height > > > I equals coil current > > >The magnetic field of the 600 lb. magnet was measured at various distances >from the magnet using a Hall effect transducer (factory calibrated). These >results were compared with the expression for the dipole field to yield a >magnetic moment of: > > 7 \ / 3 3 > M equals 10 0- ft or 100 gauss ft. Therefore, the maximum torque >is predicted to be: > > -3 NI > ¬/´ equals MH equals 2.6 times 10 (----) ft. lbs., > L > >I in amps, > >L in meters. > > >The length of the motor coil is .69 m. and the number of turns is 2,630. >Therefore, > > ¬/´ equals 9.9 I ft. lbs. (I in amps). > > >Joseph Newman's measurements of torque and current are listed below: > > >Voltage I ¬/´ ¬/´ / I > 6 .6 17.3/4 7.21 > 12 .98 33/4 8.42 > 18 .75 29.3/4 9.77 > 24 1.3 38/4 7.31 > 30 1.4 47/4 8.39 > ----- > average 8.2 > > >The value 8.2 for ¬/´ / I compares well with the predicted value of 9.9 >considering inaccuracies in measuring devices. > >It has often been noted by Joseph Newman that for a fixed power input to a >coil, the torque increases with the moment of the magnet. If the magnet is >made infinitely magnetic, the torque becomes infinite, even if the power to >the coil is very small. > > >IV. Dynamic Properties > >A.) Inductance > >To begin with, the inductance of the 600 lb. magnet motor coil may be >predicted and taken from measurement. The predicted value is: > > 2 A > L equals M N --- , > o L > > A equals coil area > > L equals coil length > > N equals 2630 > > >With a coil radius of 2.5 feet and 2.25 feet length, we predict L equals 23 >henries. > > >In operation, the motor inputs a square wave voltage for a fraction of the >roughly 0.5 Hz. cycle. Since the coil resistance is 13r, L/R should be >much larger than one period, and we predict a current rise of: > > > -------------- > ! > ! > V ! > ------------ > > > / > / > I / > / > -------------------------- > > > V -t/L/R V > I equals --- (l-e ) approximately equal to --- t > R L > > > >From an oscillograph photo with no load on the system, the coil current >rises 0.5 amps in 0.1 sec. when 200 volts are switched across the coil. >Thus: > > > 200 (0.1) > L equals ------------- equals 40 Henries > 0.5 > > >The magnet is turning during this measurement so the approximate agreement >between theory and measurement is reasonable. > > >B.) Motor Frequency > >Under no lead and assuming zero friction, the maximum theoretically >possible frequency of the motor is determined by the condition that the >induced voltage is equal to (-) the input voltage. The induced voltage is: > > 2 > Vind approximately equal to -w Bmagnet * Ro N , > > Bmag equals magnetic induction of rotating magnet > > Ro equals coil radius > > w equals 2* X frequency > > With Vind equals - V we find: > > V 1 > f equals --- --------------- > 2 > 2* * Ro N Bmag > > > Now Bmag equals 2* M , > --- > r > > > M equals magnetic moment , r equals magnet volume > > > W 3 > With m equals .01 --- (ft) , Ro equals .76 m , N equals 2630 > 2 > m > > > 2 3 > /`´/ equals * (1') X 4' equals 12.56 (ft) we find: > > > V ư > f equals --- ------------------ equals .0067 V (Hz) > 3 2 > 4* M N R0 > > > > f equals .402 V (rpm) > > >At 200 Volts we find the maximum frequency, if the motor had a 100% >intrinsic efficiency (no losses) , is: > > f equals 80.4 rpm , about double the 600 lb observed motor >frequency under no load. > > >C.) Energy Input (Theoretical Estimate) > > > Assuming that: > > o > 1.) The voltage input and induced emf are 180 out of phase. > > 2.) The voltage input varies sinusoidally. > > >We have: > > > iwt dI > (V - Vind) e equals L --- plus IR > dt > > > > V - Vind > I equals ------------- cos (wt - Q) > -------------- > ) 2 > R ) 1 plus (wL) > ---- > R > > > where t an (Q) equals wL/R > > > The average power consumed by the coil is then: > > > 1 V (V - Vind) > P equals --- ----------------------- cos (Q) > 2 -------------- > / 2 > R `/ 1 plus (wL) > ---- > R > > > > > 1 V (V - Vind) V R >(V - Vind) > P equals --- ----------------------- apr. equals ---- ---- > 2 -------------- 2wL wL > / 2 > R `/ 1 plus (wL) > ---- > R > > > 40 > With w equals 2* ---- apr. equals 4 , L equals 50 , wL equals 200 , > 60 > > > wL 1 > ---- equals 20 , V equals 200 Vind apr. equals --- V >equals 100 , > R 2 > > 100 > P equals ----- equals 2.5 Watts > 40 > > >This number agrees approximately with Joseph Newman's measurements of input >power, in an experiment in which output was measured at about 5 Watts. The >numbers used in the above calculation are approximate so the result >represents an estimate. The expression for the input power along with the >expression for Vind allow a prediction of how input power varies with motor >frequency and voltage. The plot is shown in Figure 2, and the prediction >is given below: > > > (1) (2) (3) >10.0! * * * > ! * * * > ! * * * > 9.0! * * * > ! * * * > ! * * * > 8.0! * * * > ! * * * > ! * * * > 7.0! * * * > ! * * * > ! * * * > 6.0! * * * > ! * * * > ! * * * > 5.0! * * * > ! * * * > ! * * * > 4.0! * * * > ! * * * > ! * * * > 3.0! * * * > ! * * * > ! * * * > 2.0! * * * > ! * * * > ! * * * > 1.0! * * * > ! * * * > ! * * * > >0!______________________*_______________________*__________________________* >________ > 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 > >Vertical axis ---- Predicted Input Power (Watts) >Horizontal axis ---- Motor Frequency (rpm) > >FIGURE 2: Predicted Input Power VS Motor Frequency (600 lb unit) > > 1) ---- V equals 100 Volts > > 2) ---- V equals 200 Volts > > 3) ---- V equals 300 Volts > > >[Note: due to the limitations of the ASCII medium, the above ***** lines >appear jagged; >also, the graphical representation is qualitative and approximately >quantitative due the nature of the ******** lines.] > > > 2 >Predicted Power Input equals 450 ( V ) (1 - 200 f ) > --- --- --- > 200 V 80 > -------------------------------- Watts > 2 > (1 plus [ f ] ) > ----- > 3.1 > > V equals input voltage (volts) > > f equals motor frequency (rpm) > > >This result was obtained by requiring the derived formula to match the >experimental result that input power at 200 volts and 35.7 rpm. is 1.8 >Watts. > > >V. Predicted Output Power > >The output power is found by averaging the product of torque on the magnet >and frequency over one cycle. The torque is given by: > > ----` ----` ----` > ¬/´ equals M times H , > > MNI > and ¬/´ equals MH cos (wt) equals ---- cos (wt) , > L > >Where the fact that maximum torque occurs in phase with maximum input >voltage has been used. The output power is therefore: > > > MN (V. - Vind) W > P (t) equals ---- ------------- ------------------- cos >(wt) cos (wt-Q) , > L R --------------- > / 2 > `/ 1 plus ( wL ) > ( ---- ) > ( R ) >and the average power is: > > 1 MN (V - Vind) w > Pout equals --- ---- ----------------------- > 2 L R ( 2 ) > ( ( wL ) ) > (1 plus ( ---- ) ) > ( ( R ) ) > > >The output power goes to zero at the maximum frequency (V equals Vind) , >and also at zero frequency. > > >VI. Predicted Efficiency > >Dividing the expressions for output and input power yields: > > MN W >Predicted efficiency equals ---- --- times 100 percent , > L V > > >Where W cannot exceed its maximum value. Using MN/L equals 9.9 ft. lbs. >1 amp equals 13 j./amp yields the following expression for the predicted >efficiency of the 600 pound Newman motor: > > > f >Predicted efficiency equals 1.4 ---- times 100 percent , f in r.p.m. > V V in volts > >Operating under no load, the above formula predicts a Newman Motor >efficiency of 24% (35 rpm at 200 volts). The theoretical maximum motor >efficiency is obtained by using the maximum frequency of 80 rpm at 200 V., >yielding a 56% upper limit in the case that the motor has zero frictional >losses. Working back through the equations it can be seen that the maximum >predicted efficiency is given purely in terms of geometrical factors (ratio >of magnet volume to coil volume), and cannot exceed 100%. > >It is clear that the measured efficiencies for the Newman Motor are far in >excess of predicted efficiencies. The predicted input power is in >agreement with measured input. > >The measured output power exceeds the predicted output. For example, at >1.8 Watts input and 24% efficiency, we expect 0.4 Watts output from the >Newman Motor. In one experiment the motor generated 5 Watts of output >power with 1.8 Watts input drain. The discrepancies are far too large to >be explained by experimental errors. > > >VII. Unusual (Non Conventional) Behavior > >As seen above, a number of properties of the Newman Motor follow >conventional theory. In specific, the input power is as expected. The >output power (in excess of input) is the non-conventional result. In my >mind, the most interesting motor measurement is the oscillograph photos >taken around the coil showing very high voltages. This photo also shows >the (to me amazing) fact that the coil current is over three times the >current at the battery when the voltage is applied. > > >My opinion is that an excess charge is left in the coil when the input >voltage is cut off. At this point, a spark appears and a huge induced >e.m.f. is created in the coil. This e.m.f. SHOULD disappear quickly >(showing up as a spike). However, the high voltage remains, having the >period of the moving magnet. This indicates that the magnet is "pushing" >an excess charge around in the coil, and this appears as excess current >when contact is re-established with the battery. > >There is also the issue of the "anomalous" current which appears during the >spark. It is unclear from the photos whether this current appears in the >coil, but it has the proper sign and magnitude to drive the magnet. > > >VIII. Future Theoretical Research > >The upcoming challenge for this writer is to explain the Newman Motor >output mathematically. The purpose of the above documentation, for me, is >to isolate the origin of the excess energy. At that point it is likely >that application of a unified theory of charge, matter, and energy, e.g., >Joseph Newman's Theory, will be required to mathematically describe the >results. This mathematical exlanation will also have to explain other >various embodiments of the Newman Invention, which will obviously result >from the Newman Disclosures. > ****************************************** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 09:56:28 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA29742; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 09:53:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 09:53:09 -0700 Message-ID: <360BC8B6.65A0135F verisoft.com.tr> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 19:45:42 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex Subject: The light speed barrier: Bending the rules (eprint:gr-qc/9809068) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"0aGYj3.0.VG7.qfy2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22702 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9809068 Regards, hamdi ucar gr-qc/9809068 [abs, src, html] : Title: The light speed barrier: Bending the rules Authors: Eric Baird Special relativity includes a concealed mechanism for reducing time-dilation effects in two mutually-receding objects. Forwarding their signals via one or more intermediate physical relay stages (a "probe chain") allows enhanced communication and propulsi on efficiency. These possibilities are masked by the mathematical redefinitions of the special theory, which then assigns the velocity of the signal source a correspondingly lower value by using a velocity-addition formula. Probe chains reveal the existen ce of velocity-dependent curvature within inertial systems, and suggest a mechanism for indirect radiation from black holes that is strongly reminiscent of Hawking radiation. The "emitter-theory" force law is mentioned as a possible basis for a curved-spa ce alternative to special relativity. (17kb) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 10:06:19 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA02949; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:05:02 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:05:02 -0700 Message-ID: <360BCDAF.7A37758C GroupZ.net> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 13:06:55 -0400 From: sno X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5b2 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "freenrg-l eskimo.com" , "USA-TESLA list.iex.net" , "vortex-l eskimo.com" Subject: New Patent Source On Line Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Yx4Nu2.0.uj.zqy2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22703 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: US Government to put patents on line... http://www.gcn.com/gcn/1998/september7/13.htm Steve Opelc From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 10:23:08 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA12635; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:20:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:20:59 -0700 Message-ID: <360BD10B.9405597B bellsouth.net> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 13:21:15 -0400 From: Terry Blanton Reply-To: commengr bellsouth.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Microwave Question References: <002301bde89e$3de77e20$a5b4bfa8 default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"zXe6U3.0.F53.v3z2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22704 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Andrew Corporation sells waveguide to coax adaptors. See: http://www.andrew.com/products/catalog/pdf/37c220.pdf Although I think they only go down to 3 GHz. Oh, and the retail price is $340. Hope this helps. Terry Frederick J Sparber wrote: > To: Vortex > > I wish to procure an $86.00 microwave oven > 2.45 Gigahertz at about 750 watts and use it for some experiments. > > The Oscillator (Magnetron or Klystron?)feeds the 0.5 ft^3 oven (manual > timer)through a plastic "window" about 3" x 4" on the side of the chamber. > > What would be the proper way to couple to this window with a probe/loop and > feed the energy out through a coax fed through a hole in the other side of > the oven where it would feed > a Resonant Cavity or such? > > All Inputs/Outputs Welcome. :-) > > Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 10:46:57 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA22915; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:42:06 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:42:06 -0700 Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:42:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809251742.KAA17599 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Whirlpower Resent-Message-ID: <"Aj4vz3.0.rb5.iNz2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22705 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Sorry about getting the wrong name on there again. I don't know much about computers, never had one. This one I just get to use on occasion. Actually I don't even know how it works. That is why I asked Ross to go read the transcript. I don't know how to cut and paste or download or anything really but search and email. I'm just a poor dumb stupid person that thinks a whirlpool can be used to generate electricity. I had a dream, I saw a giant whirlpool. At first I just started asking if ayone had ever built a whirlpool. I learned all about Schauberger, Baumgartner, Ash, Winter, Chaos, ect. ect. and vortex work in general. Then after talking to a number of experts I found out nobody ever built a giant whirlpool. Everyone seemed fixated on the vortex itself. But my dream wasn't about the vortex, it was about a giant whirlpool. I went to college and took a little physics but I can not argue science except to point to what I have said about science not knowing. Did anyone see the Lightning and Tornado show a few weeks ago where they said almost everything science thought about the vortex was wrong, that new information just discovered in the past year had humbled science and they needed to go back to the drawing board and start all over? Do I need to go dig that quote up? Would it make any difference? I will if it would. But this is the vortex list. It seems at least one of you would have also see this or even better know where they got this new information and what it is. If not, I need to find an even better list where people know what is happening. I heard the other day knowledge is increasing so fast it is almost impossible to keep up. I have noticed this in this project many times. This is my point about all this. Ross goes into his theory and is writing his book. More power to him. He doesn't see my theory and it probably doesn't fit his theory. So he is not going to help. He is just going to call me a nut as he already has and try and make me look bad. The only way to find out if a whirlpool can generate electricity is put it to the test, first mathmatically then a prototype, is that not right? Nobody ever tried. At least that I can find out about, and I have talked to hundreds of people and many experts. There is a lot of stuff on the vortex, but nothing on the whirlpool. I think it is worth checking out since there has been so much talk about the vortex, the hurricane, the spiral galaxy, ect. but there is not one bit of hard data about the whirlpool. What is a whirlpool? In my dream, what I saw was awesome. It was really big. It looked like a hurricane of water. Probably 300 feet accross. You could feel the power. And it was beautiful. It would be worth building for art's sake alone. People would flock to see it. But it is worth so much more. Can't anybody see??? What's a poor dreamer to do? David Dennard From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 10:53:51 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAB28769; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:51:06 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:51:06 -0700 Message-ID: <360B7603.362C pacbell.net> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:52:51 +0000 From: Frank Chilton Reply-To: fchltn pacbell.net Organization: ME X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-PBWG (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: vortex-digest Digest V98 #536 --- microwaves References: <199809251640.JAA21861 mx1.eskimo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"va3B22.0.517.8Wz2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22706 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > Subject: Microwave Question > Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:04:13 -0600 > From: "Frederick J Sparber" > To: > CC: "George" > > To: Vortex > > I wish to procure an $86.00 microwave oven > 2.45 Gigahertz at about 750 watts and use it for some experiments. > > The Oscillator (Magnetron or Klystron?)feeds the 0.5 ft^3 oven (manual > timer)through a plastic "window" about 3" x 4" on the side of the chamber. > > What would be the proper way to couple to this window with a probe/loop and > feed the energy out through a coax fed through a hole in the other side of > the oven where it would feed > a Resonant Cavity or such? > > All Inputs/Outputs Welcome. :-) > > Regards, Frederick It is usually easiest just to disassemble the microwave oven and reconfigure the magnetron, power supply and control panel into a useful lab microwave source directly with wave guide, or short coax if you really want to carry such powers in coax. You can use the case as your see-into microwave "shielded room", if you have no other, by EMI sealing it. Coupling into an antenna in the oven is difficult to properly perform because any mismatch can cause such VSWR that you burn out your magnetron. When I do experiments in my oven I put in a styrofoam 1/2 cup of water to absorb enough microwave power to save the magnetron. Are you sure that the experiments you want to do can not be configured inside the intact oven, which then saves a lot of equipment and safety problems. Remember the EM flux in the oven is high enough to easily burn out any electronics (try an old portable radio with the cover off), blind and burn people. Extensive leakage can also wipe out your neighbor's TV pictures and burn out their cell phones. Safety needs to be your biggest concern. FMC From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 11:04:45 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA04755; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 11:03:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 11:03:04 -0700 Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 11:04:27 -0700 Message-Id: <199809251804.LAA13284 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: Gone to SOHO conference Resent-Message-ID: <"sWik02.0.z91.Nhz2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22707 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I'll be gone to a conference in Maine next week. So may not respond to any more postings until after I get back, and even then the number of emails in my in basket will probably be three hundred or so, so I will delete most of them and will miss the few that are directed to me. So if you really wanted an answer, send me the email again in two weeks. Have fun, Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 11:29:08 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA20064; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 11:27:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 11:27:16 -0700 Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 11:28:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809251828.LAA20522 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Whirlpower Theory Resent-Message-ID: <"aWZk_.0.Iv4.32-2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22708 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Steve writes, > -------------- > Hi Ross, David and all, > > Ross has noted that indeed we do weigh less at night (opposition from > the sun). Is there data that a hurricane "slows" at NIGHT? This would be a > common 'key-part' for you both. (understood landmass - lack of water will > slow it!:) > > -=se=- > steve (just a thought that was going round & a round:) ekwall > off to view the weather channel. Thanks Steve, Evaporation is less at night which would slow the hurricane. Probably, and I can only guess, a graph of moon posistion, temperature, day and night, compared to hurricane strength could give a substantial clue to whether or not gravity is a factor. I don't see any other explanation. If everyone would just watch the hurricane and think, what is making that thing spin? Is it the wind? Is it the Sun? Since water moisture seems to be the major factor of change, like when it went over some of the islands, down went the power, the sheer weight and mass of moisture seems to make it spin faster. This would seem to back up my theory that mass, in the case of the hurricane is energy. And if mass is energy, gravity must be the driving force. The same with what Ross just said about mysterious dark matter. How else could more mass be the reason for the unaccounted for acceleration in Vera Rubin's study? And why can't the "intelligent" people see this? Does anyone here know any place or person I can go to and explain my theory that is working in this area and trying to find out what is going on? David Dennard From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 11:54:47 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA29339; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 11:49:27 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 11:49:27 -0700 Message-ID: <360BE617.7BF3 interlaced.net> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 14:51:03 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Microwave Question References: <002301bde89e$3de77e20$a5b4bfa8 default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"dH82N.0.LA7.sM-2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22709 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frederick J Sparber wrote: > > To: Vortex > > I wish to procure an $86.00 microwave oven > 2.45 Gigahertz at about 750 watts and use it for some experiments. > > The Oscillator (Magnetron or Klystron?)feeds the 0.5 ft^3 oven (manual > timer)through a plastic "window" about 3" x 4" on the side of the chamber. > > What would be the proper way to couple to this window with a probe/loop and > feed the energy out through a coax fed through a hole in the other side of > the oven where it would feed > a Resonant Cavity or such? > > All Inputs/Outputs Welcome. :-) > Fred, I have a working MW oven in pieces on my workbench. I cut the waveguide from the oven and the MAGNETRON now puts out energy thru the open waveguide cut. Thru the end of the open guide, the "1/4 wave" stub antenna that feeds the guide is in plane sight. It looks like: |<---------87 mm----------------->| | | -------- --------------------------------- ^ | | | | _____ | | | | A | | 43 mm | | | | high | | | | | | | | | _V______| | | |_______ ------------------ | | -----------------B XXXXXX | | XXXXXX C ----------| |---------- | | | magnetron | | | I mean to show that the internal dimensions of the waveguide are 87 mm by 43 - about 2-to-1. The magnetron feeds the guide via a 1/4 wave stub antenna that penetrates the guide wall 26 mm. The stub is 26 mm in diameter and ends in a blunt, flat end, with rounded corners to prevent corona. The stub end is 17 mm from the roof of the guide and close - about 9 mm from the flat rear wall you're looking into above. At B, the top hat-shaped part of the guide joins the bottom via a wide flange and the XXXXX's at c are a wire cloth RF gasket to join the magnetron to the bottom of the guide. I suggest you cut a 1" hole in the wall of the oven - locate to blank-up if you want to save the oven for use later. Duplicate the stub antenna thru the oven wall with an air-core coax line made from 1" copper water pipe for the outer conductor and, maybe, 1/2" copper tube for the inner conductor. Solder a flange on the 1" pipe and bolt to the oven to join the hole. Cap the 1/2" pipe with some kind of rounded corner flat cap - maybe a regular stamped cap would work. Make the coax line as long as you want it and wrap lots of teflon pipe thread tape at spots along the 1/2" - especially right at the oven entrance - so the wrap supports the 1/2" inside of the 1". Calculate the impedance of your line - just for kicks. You could just duplicate the stub in your load cavity, I guess. Test with some load in the oven to keep things in hand! Does this sound OK - anyone???? Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 12:42:39 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA15380; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 12:40:08 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 12:40:08 -0700 Message-ID: <360BF1F3.1A0A365D bellsouth.net> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 15:41:39 -0400 From: Terry Blanton Reply-To: commengr bellsouth.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Whirlpower Theory References: <199809251828.LAA20522 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Duovg1.0.Dm3.N6_2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22710 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: David Dennard wrote: > And why can't the "intelligent" people see this? > > Does anyone here know any place or person I can go to and explain my theory that > is working in this area and trying to find out what is going on? > > David Dennard You could try: http://freeweb.pdq.net/zpe/ Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 12:44:31 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA16306; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 12:42:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 12:42:22 -0700 Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 15:40:53 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Roger Hastings Paper on Newman Motor Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809251543_MC2-5AAF-7580 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"JcTuq1.0.i-3.T8_2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22711 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Thank you Mitchell Jones for posting the Hastings paper on Newman Motor. This is kind of experimental detail we need to evaluate the machine. I wish Soule would publish less theory and more experiment. This Hastings report is a fine start, but we must see more. We must have a follow-up test in another lab, with a different set of instruments, and some variations of mensuration techniques. The experiment itself should be done exactly the same way, or it may not work. (It should be varied later on.) Replication is essence of science, but strangely enough there is no hard-and-fast mathematical rule to define how many replications you should see before you believe something. It is matter of taste. My personal threshold is around five experiments, depending on the quality of instruments, the S/N ratio, the skill of the researchers and the number of times the experiment is run at each lab. The only exceptions to this rule are hugely self-evidence experiments that are obviously real by first principles, like the first airplane flight or the atom bomb explosion. (Actually, the first flight was more ambiguous than you might realize, because an uneducated observer might not be able to distinguish an uncontrolled hop from a controlled flight, and about a dozen other people did made credible claims that they flew before the Wrights did. Orville defined the engineering requirements for controlled flight in a classic essay in 1908.) In cold fusion, McKubre, Miles, Bockris, Los Alamos and Oriani would be enough to convince me the effect is real. Any one of these is worth fifty half-assed 1989 rush-job experiments. There are roughly a hundred other high quality excess heat experiments in the literature, which should be enough to convince any sane person. With Newman, this is the first convincing paper I have seen. It's a good start, but we must see more before we draw a conclusion. *I* must see more, anyway -- that's how I think science is supposed to work -- and there's the rub. The machine that Hastings describes was destroyed, only Newman knows how to make another one, and he will not do it. An experiment which cannot be run again might as well be a mistake or a fraud. It has no scientific significance. I have often said this about the CETI 1,200 watt demo. I do not retract my observations of that experiment, but my observations will eventually become nugatory if CETI cannot or will not repeat the work. And I do not mean they should repeat it once or twice: I mean hundreds of times in dozens of different labs. After the demo, I assumed that would happen. I do know why that did not happen, and I am disappointed. There have been convincing secret demos within CETI, and promising collaborative work with other labs. Hastings describes what appears to be a definitive test if the account is true, and there was no hidden wire. As Chris Tinsley used to say, this test is either true or fraudulent; there is no middle ground. I cannot tell which category the Hastings' test falls into, and I will not guess. Independent replication would prove it is real. I'll wait for that, even though I wait in vain knowing that Newman will prevent it. The test is similar to the Minato motor video. The motor lit up automobile headlights for an hour with no input. If that is not a fake, Minato is the greatest inventor in history, but the motor is secret, it has probably been destroyed, nobody has been allowed to see it or check for fraud, the test has never been repeated, etc., etc., you-know-the-drill. I have a small complaint about the experiment itself, which could easily be remedied if the experiment could be repeated. I do not understand the technique used to estimate output. I gather it relies upon a comparison to a conventional motor. That's good, but I would like to see a small dynamometer or calorimetry to bolster this comparison. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 13:11:54 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA31520; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 13:08:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 13:08:32 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980925160733.00821dd0 inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney inforamp.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 16:07:33 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: Whirlpower Theory In-Reply-To: <199809251828.LAA20522 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"CF6GN2.0.Ki7._W_2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22712 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:28 AM 09/25/98 -0700, you wrote: > >Does anyone here know any place or person I can go to and explain my theory that >is working in this area and trying to find out what is going on? > I can't, but I recall that there was a blue glow reported in the centre of a water vortex at a demonstration at one of the Free Energy conferences within the last 3 years. It is also an established fact that you can generate electricity with a water vortex. Several thousand volts. No amperage to speak of though. I saw that somewhere on Bill B.'s Site, and I have read it elsewhere. Perhaps if you applied an axial magnetic field to the water vortex electrostatic generator, you might wind up with some homopolar amperage? Anyone here want to figure this one? (I think I had the same dream.) Colin Quinney From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 13:36:39 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA09794; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 13:29:43 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 13:29:43 -0700 Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 13:30:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809252030.NAA29353 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Whirlpower Theory Resent-Message-ID: <"m6Jii3.0.uO2.tq_2s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22713 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > > Perhaps if you applied an axial magnetic field to the water vortex > electrostatic generator, you might wind up with some homopolar amperage? > > Anyone here want to figure this one? > > (I think I had the same dream.) > > > Colin Quinney Thank you for the reply Colin. In your dream did you see a huge whirlpool or was it a huge vortex? Many have tried to tap the vortex and failed. My theory is very different. I say don't tap the vortex. The vortex MUST NOT BE DISTURBED. Does anyone get it? David Dennard From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 13:59:02 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA00594; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 13:55:57 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 13:55:57 -0700 Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 13:56:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809252056.NAA10271 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: Whirlpower Theory Resent-Message-ID: <"qOqTs1.0.b8.RD03s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22714 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > > You could try: > > http://freeweb.pdq.net/zpe/ > > Terry > Terry, As I mentioned to you and want to say to all, that site looks suspicious. They don't say who they are. I wrote but it says they don't want to talk to people giving this information away, unless they can't get any backing after ten weeks. I don't think they are working on the same thing I am because they mention "vortex tube". It looks like they are trying to tap the vortex like everyone else has tried before. They mention they are fashoning their work after Schauberger. My theory has been confirmed by the experts on Schauberger's work at Vortex World in Sweden and they have the test of principle model for my work. They recognize the diffference, and they saw what I am saying in one of their prototypes in a related matter, water cleaning. Tapping or touching the vortex itself will not work in my opinion and if it does it will be very expensive and only yield a small amount of energy. I also think Newman is barking up this same tree on an electromagnetic level. David Dennard From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 14:45:22 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA21115; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 14:40:08 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 14:40:08 -0700 Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 15:41:56 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: RE: [off topic] lung.... In-Reply-To: <199809251539.IAA26038 Au.oro.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"RMQbK1.0.p95.ts03s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22715 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 25 Sep 1998, Ross Tessien wrote: --snip amount of work to the exhaust side. If you added an accumulator on that side, you could make the thing like bag pipes sort of. -- collector, float, and hose. Costs are coming down. Ross Tessien -------------------- Hi Ross, You beat me to it:) The "Bag-Pipe-'Bag'" like container could also be filled (should be filled) pre dive and thrown over-board as diver enters the water, that way first breath is always assisted too. The deeper the "BAG" the more pressure assist on intake, The "Bag" should be on the exhaust side and always below surface area. The further down one goes, the more the assist pressure. (I'm also thinking of a small over-flow valve say in the 20-30# range for over-pressure). Resurfacing would require refilling the bag with air again though. should be simple enough. Two hoses, one bag (rubber), and mouth piece (regulator) should be about $50 range, less mask fin(s) and weights-anchor(s) etc. Rather than a solar pump, what about a boat anchor to the bottom up to the "bag" with a pulley rope to pull the bag down (increasing pressure assist) while KISS it would require diver to heave ho the bag down manually. Again, I think this is a one-way assist for bottom work only, on returning to the surface again you'd need to refill the bag. thoughts? -=se=- steve (sorry about the extra-ropes/pulley (messy idea?:) ekwall p.s. While this is OFF TOPIC, I've been amazed at the plethora of different ways listers here attack the SAME problem. Very Educational:) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 15:17:50 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA32105; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 15:13:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 15:13:03 -0700 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980925221425.008fe7e0 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, 25 Sep 1998 18:14:25 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Edwin Strojny Subject: Re: Microwave Question Resent-Message-ID: <"qecQc1.0.Ir7.jL13s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22716 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:04 AM 9/25/98 -0600,Fred Sparber wrote: >To: Vortex > >I wish to procure an $86.00 microwave oven >2.45 Gigahertz at about 750 watts and use it for some experiments. > > >All Inputs/Outputs Welcome. :-) > >Regards, Frederick > I thought you said you were through running experiments. :-) Ed Strojny From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 15:32:49 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA08842; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 15:30:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 15:30:30 -0700 Message-ID: <000e01bde8d4$2bacd620$898f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Cc: "George" Subject: Re: Microwave Question Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 16:30:53 -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: <"bMRH1.0.3A2.5c13s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22717 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Edwin Strojny To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Friday, September 25, 1998 4:16 PM Subject: Re: Microwave Question Ed Strojny wrote: >At 10:04 AM 9/25/98 -0600,Fred Sparber wrote: >>To: Vortex >> >>I wish to procure an $86.00 microwave oven >>2.45 Gigahertz at about 750 watts and use it for some experiments. >> >> >>All Inputs/Outputs Welcome. :-) >> >>Regards, Frederick >> >I thought you said you were through running experiments. :-) I was Ed, but that $795.00 McGraw-Hill Multimedia Encyclopedia of Science and Technology CD purchase, sparked a bit curiosity about something that caught my eye. :-) I was hoping to do an experiment that was cheaper than that. :-) Regards, Frederick > >Ed Strojny > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 16:58:36 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA07119; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 16:55:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 16:55:09 -0700 Message-ID: <360C2DED.3572 interlaced.net> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 19:57:33 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Microwave Question References: <002301bde89e$3de77e20$a5b4bfa8 default> <360BE617.7BF3@interlaced.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ICA0Y.0.1l1.Sr23s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22718 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Previously I said: The magnetron feeds the guide via a 1/4 wave > stub antenna that penetrates the guide wall 26 mm. The stub is 26 mm > in diameter and ends in a blunt, flat end, with rounded corners to > prevent corona. I should have said: "the stub is 15 mm in diameter" - not 26 mm. Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 17:08:07 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA12603; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 17:06:58 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 17:06:58 -0700 Message-ID: <002101bde8e1$a43711c0$898f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Cc: "George" Subject: Re: Microwave Question Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 18:07:18 -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: <"2J_Tl3.0.q43.X033s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22719 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Francis J. Stenger To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Friday, September 25, 1998 5:58 PM Subject: Re: Microwave Question Frank wrote: >Previously I said: > > The magnetron feeds the guide via a 1/4 wave >> stub antenna that penetrates the guide wall 26 mm. The stub is 26 mm >> in diameter and ends in a blunt, flat end, with rounded corners to >> prevent corona. > >I should have said: "the stub is 15 mm in diameter" - not 26 mm. Ah ha! Thanks, Frank. :-) Regards, Frederick > >Frank Stenger > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 17:43:22 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA22445; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 17:40:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 17:40:07 -0700 X-AirNote: 1 X-AIGTO: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-ID: <01BDE8BC.71AB7680.zpe pdq.net> From: ZPE To: "'freenrg-l eskimo.com'" , "'KeelyNet DallasTexas.net'" , "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" , "'afshou pdq.net'" , "Arnold Narvaez (E-mail 2)" , "Brian Malatesta (E-mail)" To: "Charlott Duplantis (E-mail)" , "Darrel & Karen Ogg (E-mail)" , "David Jensen (E-mail)" , "Don Morris (E-mail)" , "Donna Carlton-Shavers (E-mail)" , "Edwin Averet (E-mail)" To: "Frank Haskel (E-mail)" , "Harry Howard (E-mail)" , "'hola100 swbell.net'" , "Joe & Kathy Walbaum (E-mail)" , "Joe Arms (E-mail)" , "Margaret Nikol (E-mail)" To: "Mike & Jackie Miller (E-mail 2)" , "Raymond Doyle & Kara Laurene Fruge' Gaines (E-mail)" , "Rhonda Duke (E-mail)" , "'sofasco flash.net'" , "'wma ix.netcom.com'" , "Bill McMurtry (E-mail)" To: "Chris Lautre (E-mail)" , "David Book (E-mail)" , "Edwin Strojny (E-mail)" , "Jean-Pierre Lentin (E-mail)" , "Jmag (E-mail)" , "Jorg D. Ostrowski (E-mail)" To: "Lance Ellinghaus (E-mail)" , "Terry Bastian (E-mail)" , "Zack Widup (E-mail)" Subject: COUNTDOWN...Update on progress Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 19:40:37 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 Encoding: 34 TEXT Resent-Message-ID: <"9dAiF1.0.bU5.dV33s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22720 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Greetings all! I just wanted to bring everyone up to date on our progress. We have been negotiating the terms of a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) with a very reputable 3rd party validation source which we located through our Aug 19th announcement. The terms have now been agreed upon and we are scheduled to meet together in a few days to sign the NDA and turn over disclosure material for their full evaluation. Within a week or so after that, they will make their decision. They have assured us that, if a positive decision is made, they have investors waiting to hear from them when a very promising technology is found, who will then provide the necessary funds to begin an official research/development project to verify our claims empirically to be immediately followed by the construction of a working prototype. Upon positive evaluation, we will be negotiating the terms of an intial working relationship that will last for the duration of the research phase lasting until a working prototype is constructed. This will, of course, be followed by efforts to isolate the first marketable design. Once this initial working (business) relationship has been agreed upon (within 4 weeks), our "countdown" will (unfortunately) be put on hold. If for some reason the new partnership which we will have developed with this 3rd party and its investors "breaks down" and is dissolved (which we seriously are NOT expecting), then our "countdown" will be accelerated to "ZERO" and full public disclosure of our discoveries will be made. If our new partnership proceeds as expected, we will be working together pushing very hard to make our F/E technology available to the world ASAP. Our estimates are that it could happen within a couple of years (in the year 2000). What a way to start the new millinium! Best Wishes, ZPE http://freeweb.pdq.net/zpe From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 17:44:37 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA23371; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 17:41:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 17:41:20 -0700 X-AirNote: 1 X-AIGTO: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-ID: <01BDE8BC.AE01EF60.zpe pdq.net> From: ZPE To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Whirlpower Theory Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 19:42:11 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 Encoding: 81 TEXT Resent-Message-ID: <"mH6fp2.0.ci5.kW33s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22721 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Greetings all! David Dennard wrote: > They mention they are fashoning their work after Schauberger. No, our work is in NO way similar to Schauberger's, and, actually, our web site never said that we are fashioning our work after Schauberger. We said, "...the concepts being introduced in these pages have never been published by anyone before August 19, 1998 and are not similar to anything ever published before." Our only reference to Schauberger was to say that he was NOT the man being referred to when we stated, "The hidden physical principle... was first discovered and correctly identified by a man who lived long ago.' We also stated that, "...there is absolutely no comparison in the basic principles at work to anything published in the past." Schauberger's work HAS been published in the past on a number of occasions. > I wrote but it says they don't want to talk to people giving this information away, unless they can't get any backing after ten weeks. We definitely WANT to talk to people but we cannot disclose any real secrets... yet. Our primary reason for the "announcement" and "countdown" is to FIRST allow ourselves a final chance to locate funding. If after 10 weeks, funding appears far away then full disclosure will occur on schedule. > It looks like they are trying to tap the vortex like everyone else has tried before. Tapping directly into the vortex swirl by doing something like introducing a turbine blade directly into the swirl or some such thing is definitely NOT the answer and I'll have to commend you for recognizing that fact. Unfortunately, David, your idea of "frame dragging" or tapping into the "wobble" is not the answer either, though it's a creative approach. However, the power of the vortex is "in" the vortex in the sense that the vortex is able to create a special "new physics" that is needed in order to achieve o/u. This "new physics" provides the "bridge" that allows us to extract surplus power from a previously unknown source of energy. (Describing this source would disclose too much...sorry.) BTW, the reason the vortex tube is important to our is because this "new physics" I mention is responsible for the "Ranque-Hilsch effect" of the vortex tube, a phenomenon that NO ONE has successfully explained. We discovered the true physics responsible for it many years ago and were even able to predict it through computer models of our discovery. The vortex tube itself is not capable of doing anything more than it was designed to do. That's the problem with it...the design. The reason "everyone else" has tried to use the vortex to create an o/u effect and failed is because they were lacking a VERY important fundamental ingredient... a solid and proven conceptual foundation. No amount of "trial and error" by applying some hap-hazard idea is going to achieve anything. The chances of success would be like playing the lottery. Unfortunately, much of the F/E community has adopted this approach, especially in the arena where permanent magnets are involved. I would also have to say that, unless your "dream" inspired idea was directly from the Creator of the universe Himself, the chances of your idea being correct is no better than it would be if you took the hap-hazard approach. Most genuine discoveries of this magnitudes were either Creator-inspired and/or the result of a tremendous amount of engineering effort that began with solid proven facts. >Tapping or touching the vortex itself will not work in my opinion and if it does it will be very expensive and only yield a small amount of energy. Actually, tapping directly into the vortex itself would yield NO sustainable power and would only "snuff it out" as you say. I like your audacity, BTW. However, I strongly suggest you take some of Ross' advice if don't you want to lose your more educated audience. They are really the only ones that have any potential of helping you sort through your ideas. Try to look past any insulting tone in the advice you get from the "Ross"s of the list. They are trying to look out for the interests of all list members when they "suggest" corrections to statements they believe are erroneous. By all means, don't give up on us list members in your search for answers and help. Persevere and fruits will bear. Best Wishes, ZPE http://freeweb.pdq.net/zpe/ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 18:43:18 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA10402; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 18:39:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 18:39:32 -0700 Message-ID: <003f01bde8ee$93df7e40$898f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Cc: "George" Subject: Microwave Water Vapor Experiment Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 19:38:03 -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: <"wDjXP.0.NY2.JN43s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22722 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex An old trick for making water heat pipes was to put a small amount of water in a test tube and boil it out over a flame to get all of the air out, then cork it. After it has cooled to room temperature (pressure about 20 torr)you can make it boil with your hand or by dipping it in a cup of warm water. The heat transfer rate is phenomenal. Now then, what will happen if you put it in a microwave oven at room temperature or immersed in an ice-water bath where the vapor pressure is about 4 torr? Or if you put a short piece of wire in the test tube before you do the boil-off? I never did have a cork gun! :-) WITH SAFETY DISCLAIMER! Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 18:43:39 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA11796; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 18:42:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 18:42:30 -0700 Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 18:43:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809260143.SAA08851 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "Jeannette Clark" Reply-To: "Jeannette Clark" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Whirlpower Theory Resent-Message-ID: <"XEuUi2.0.Du2.5Q43s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22723 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ZPE, I am surprised and happy to see your response. > > Tapping directly into the vortex swirl by doing something like introducing > a turbine blade directly into the swirl or some such thing is definitely > NOT the answer and I'll have to commend you for recognizing that fact. > Unfortunately, David, your idea of "frame dragging" or tapping into the > "wobble" is not the answer either, though it's a creative approach. > However, the power of the vortex is "in" the vortex in the sense that the > vortex is able to create a special "new physics" that is needed in order to > achieve o/u. This "new physics" provides the "bridge" that allows us to > extract surplus power from a previously unknown source of energy. At least we agree on this much and if you find "not enough" energy in your system on down the line perhaps you will take a closer look at mine. That is if I don't get any where by then. If you aren't tapping into heat or gravity, it will be very interesting to see what else there might be! > (Describing this source would disclose too much...sorry.) BTW, the reason > the vortex tube is important to our is because this "new physics" I mention > is responsible for the "Ranque-Hilsch effect" of the vortex tube, a > phenomenon that NO ONE has successfully explained. We discovered the true > physics responsible for it many years ago and were even able to predict it > through computer models of our discovery. The vortex tube itself is not > capable of doing anything more than it was designed to do. That's the > problem with it...the design. If I am right that is where your "big bug" will be. > > The reason "everyone else" has tried to use the vortex to create an o/u > effect and failed is because they were lacking a VERY important fundamental > ingredient... a solid and proven conceptual foundation. My concept foundation is solid, a giant whirlpool, proven it is not. What looms up to me is why has no one ever built a giant whirlpool and tested it, or even theorized it. It seems to be a gapeing hole in the exploration or vortex type science. The missing link so to speak. No amount of > "trial and error" by applying some hap-hazard idea is going to achieve > anything. The chances of success would be like playing the lottery. > Unfortunately, much of the F/E community has adopted this approach, > especially in the arena where permanent magnets are involved. I would also > have to say that, unless your "dream" inspired idea was directly from the > Creator of the universe Himself, the chances of your idea being correct is > no better than it would be if you took the hap-hazard approach. Most > genuine discoveries of this magnitudes were either Creator-inspired and/or > the result of a tremendous amount of engineering effort that began with > solid proven facts. Actually it was Creator inspired. And shown to me as the Holy Grail with all the power and the glory. That is why I am driven so, against all odds and insults. > > >Tapping or touching the vortex itself will not work in my opinion and if > it does > it will be very expensive and only yield a small amount of energy. > > Actually, tapping directly into the vortex itself would yield NO > sustainable power and would only "snuff it out" as you say. I am glad to see this and talk to someone of obvious intelligence and forsight and wisdom such as yourself. > > I like your audacity, BTW. However, I strongly suggest you take some of > Ross' advice if don't you want to lose your more educated audience. They > are really the only ones that have any potential of helping you sort > through your ideas. Try to look past any insulting tone in the advice you > get from the "Ross"s of the list. They are trying to look out for the > interests of all list members when they "suggest" corrections to statements > they believe are erroneous. I will take this advise. Maybe what I am saying is not actually frame dragging but something else that may not even have a name. Frame dragging seems to be the closest thing I have found to the kind of action I am pointing to. By all means, don't give up on us list members > in your search for answers and help. Persevere and fruits will bear. And the same to you. I am pulling for you because I think you are very close, maybe right maybe not, but definately close. And that is really what is important. I'm pulling for Newman too, and others. Any suggestions or advise are greatly appreciated. If you have the capacity or could do any analysis of Whirlpower it seems to me it will be several times over zero-point in energy output. If your calculations for your vortex devise only show an small percentage over zero-point you may find it real but not practical. If your calculations show several times over for your vortex devise I think you may really have found something. These are also my feelings about Newman's devise. > > Best Wishes, > ZPE > http://freeweb.pdq.net/zpe/ Best Wishes also, David Dennard http://www.ledomedesprit.com/domeworld/whirlpower.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 19:20:07 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA21935; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 19:17:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 19:17:00 -0700 Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 19:17:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809260217.TAA22793 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Whirlpower Theory Resent-Message-ID: <"4XQ231.0.ZM5.Rw43s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22724 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Apologies again to all. This is David Not Jeannette. I will use a little less space unless I get some more response. Thank you all for you help and allowing me to bring Whirlpower into this forum. Sincerely, David Dennard From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 21:04:23 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA21132; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 21:00:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 21:00:54 -0700 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980925190005.00cd8d78 popd.ix.netcom.com> X-Sender: atech popd.ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 12:00:05 -0700 To: "Kenneth Carrigan" From: "Dennis C. Lee" Subject: Re: Power source/Searl story Cc: freenrg-l eskimo.com, KeelyNet@DallasTexas.net, vortex-L@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"VIxxc.0.0A5.rR63s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22725 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The first band collects electrons. This is Neodymium. For some reason, the rare earth elements collect electrons from the environment. The next layer accelerates the electrons. The next layer slows the electrons to let the voltage level build up. The last layer emits the electrons. It's a macroscopic semiconductor or transistor of sorts. Dennis At 08:34 AM 9/25/98 -0400, you wrote: > > >Maybe Searl DID produce something? Again web site of INE > >http://www.padrak.com/ine/KONSEARL.html > >To copy a little..... from this page.. >"To recap briefly, the device uses a cylinder of Neodymium enclosed in bands of >Nylon, Iron and Aluminium. This unit generates 3 volts and 69 are used to attain >mains voltage, rotating around magnetised bands. This voltage suggests that a >pair of optically active electrons are involved, as 3 e.v. lies in the visible >spectrum. " > >This suggest that Searl did have a working device? .. the site tries to explain >that the Neodymium might have been an isotope? Maybe Dennis can enlighten >us with this one.... Tall Ships http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 21:18:41 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA25609; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 21:17:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 21:17:37 -0700 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980925191656.00d29060 popd.ix.netcom.com> X-Sender: atech popd.ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 12:16:56 -0700 To: freenrg-l eskimo.com From: "Dennis C. Lee" Subject: Re: Objective Art - When reasoning fails Cc: KeelyNet DallasTexas.net, vortex-L@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"tRnzT2.0._F6.Vh63s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22726 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I think the plasma structure in my Unified Field Art sculpture jpg may be in the same regime as the Correa's pulsed abnormal glow discharge (PAGD). What's more probable, getting a UFA sculpture with a piece of the puzzle? Or a finished marketable prototype with all the trade secrets handed to you on a platter - at no charge? As far as the poem goes, I was experimenting with different, nonconfrontational modes of communication as an alternative to flame wars. Please do me a favor and read Ouspensky's comment on Objective Art, which is quoted in my last message, one more time. Dennis At 08:09 AM 9/25/98 -0400, you wrote: >To All, > >Please let me know if this is really a Free Energy list or if it's a useless >poem, triplicate message, 1mb attachment, anything-else-but list! If so, I >am outa here. > >Thanks, > >Ed > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Dennis C. Lee >To: Alan.CHEAH adecco.com ; alex@frolov.spb.ru >; ahannan@MIT.EDU ; >deadnuts deadnuts.com ; lupem@world.std.com >; peg@wintergreen.com ; >bso acm.org ; claudeg@world.std.com ; >DaleSVP ipa.net ; dtassen@c-zone.net ; >sweetser world.std.com ; clsmith@darwin.bu.edu >; ccantor@sequenom.com ; >76753.3551 compuserve.com <76753.3551@compuserve.com>; eben@ergeng.com >; ehill@world.std.com ; >leep world.std.com ; ejp@world.std.com >; wordpros@inforamp.net ; >moy ziplink.net ; freenrg-l@eskimo.com >; gjcheah@guybutler.com ; >wellenstein binah.cc.brandeis.edu ; >hic world.std.com ; jkokor@alum.mit.edu >; Bensinger@bdhepa.hep.brandeis.edu >; Jim Hile ; >jim msri.org ; discjt@servtech.com ; John >Ranta ; jsearl@tako.demon.co.uk >; joshprokop@worldnet.att.net >; KeelyNet@DallasTexas.net >; Leonard Dvorson ; >atc wit.edu ; ohl@world.std.com ; >71650.60 compuserve.com <71650.60@compuserve.com>; pgm@world.std.com >; rsmith@itiip.com ; >RICHARDH uucp-1.csn.net ; richard.quick@slug.org >; raddison@world.std.com ; >71022.3001 compuserve.com <71022.3001@compuserve.com>; >73577.123 compuserve.com <73577.123@compuserve.com>; tesla@pupman.com >; thiahadge@aol.com ; >tcapizzi world.std.com ; tom.duff@poweroasis.com >; TAFAUL@aol.com ; >vortex-L eskimo.com >Date: Friday, September 25, 1998 4:40 AM >Subject: Objective Art - When reasoning fails > > >>I suggest that we start the 'Unified Field Art' art movement. The painting >>was done shortly before the plasma experiment was performed. Both are shown >>in ufa.jpg. Veredith cut the cone electrode for me out of her own >initiative >>and instinct. Incredibly, I measured the cone angle to be the same as what >>is associated with the Great Pyramid, fifty one degrees as I recall. I >later >>tried to scale the electrode size up but this caused the spinning plasma >>cones to collapse onto the electrodes. The plasma pattern was no longer >>stable. Does accepting the help of an abstract artist for plasma physics >>experiments increase the ability to produce tuned phenomenon on the first >try? >> >>Below is a quote from P.D. Ouspensky's book. >> >> >>Dennis >> >> >> >>26 In Search of the Miraculous >> >> "It is known," said G. "But it would be no advantage whatever for people >to >>know it. It would even be worse. Some would believe it, others would not >>believe it, yet others would demand proofs. Afterwards they would begin to >>break one another's heads. Everything ends this way with people." >> >> In Moscow, at the same time, we also bad several interesting talks about >>art. These were connected with the story which was read on the first >>evening that I saw G. >> "At the moment it is not yet clear to you," G. once said, "that people >>living on the earth can belong to very different levels, although in >>appearance they look exactly the same. just as there arc very different >>levels of men, so there are different levels of art. Only you do not >>realize at present that the difference between these levels is far greater >>than you might suppose. You take different things on one level, far too >>near one another, and you think these different levels are accessible to >you. >> "I do not call art all that you call art, which is simply mechanical >>reproduction, imitation of nature or other people, or simply fantasy, or an >>attempt to be original. Real art is something quite different. Among >works >>of art, especially works of ancient art, you meet with many things you >>cannot explain and which contain a certain something you do not feel in >>modern works Of art. But as you do not realize what this difference is you >>very soon forget it and continue to take everything as one kind of art. >And >>yet there is an enormous difference between your art and the art of which I >>speak. In your art everything is subjective-the artist's perception of >this >>or that sensation; the forms in which he tries to express his sensations >and >>the perception of these forms by other people. In one and the same >>phenomenon one artist may feel one thing and another artist quite a >>different thing. One and the same sunset may evoke a feeling of joy in one >>artist and sadness in another. Two artists may strive to express exactly >>the same perceptions by entirely different methods, in different forms; or >>entirely different perceptions in the same forms-according to how they were >>taught, or contrary to it. And the spectators, listeners, or readers will >>perceive, not what the artist wished to convey or what he felt, but what >the >>forms in which he expresses his sensations will make them feel by >>association. Everything is subjective and everything is accidental, that >is >>to say, based on accidental associations-the impression of the artist and >>his 'creation"' (he emphasized the word "creation"), "the perceptions of >the >>spectators, listeners, or readers. >> "In real art there is nothing accidental. It is mathematics. Everything >>in it can be calculated, everything can be known beforehand. The artist >>knows and understands what he wants to convey and his work cannot produce >>one impression on one man and another impression on another, >> >> In Search of the Miraculous 27 >> >> presuming, of course, people on one level. It will always, and with >>mathematical certainty, produce one and the same impression. >> "At the same time the same work of art will produce different impressions >>on people of different levels. And people of lower levels will never >>receive from it what people of higher levels receive. This is real, >>objective art. Imagine some scientific work-a book on astronomy or >>chemistry. It is impossible that one person should understand it in one >way >>and another in another way. Everyone who is sufficiently prepared and who >>is able to read this book will understand what the author means, and >>precisely as the author means it. An objective work of art is just such a >>book, except that it affects the emotional and not only the intellectual >>side of man:' >> "Do such works of objective art exist at the present day?" I asked. >> "Of course they exist," answered G. "The great Sphinx in Egypt is such a >>work of art, as well as some historically known works of architecture, >>certain statues of gods, and many other things. There are figures of gods >>and of various mythological beings that can be read like books, only not >>with the mind but with the emotions, provided they are sufficiently >>developed. In the course of our travels in Central Asia we found, in the >>desert at the foot of the Hindu Kush, a strange figure which we thought at >>first was some ancient god or devil. At first it produced upon us simply >>the impression of being a curiosity. But after a while we began to feet >>that this figure contained many things, a big, complete, and complex system >>of cosmology. And slowly, step by step, we began to decipher this system. >>It was in the body of the figure, in its legs, in its arms, in its head, in >>its eyes, in its ears; everywhere. In the whole statue there was nothing >>accidental, nothing without meaning. And gradually we understood the aim >of >>the people who built this statue. We began to feel their thoughts, their >>feelings. Some of us thought that we saw their faces, heard their voices. >>At all events, we grasped the meaning of what they wanted to convey to us >>across thousands of years, and not oily the meaning, but all the feelings >>and the emotions connected with it as well. That indeed was art" >> >> I was very interested in what G. said about art. His principle of the >>division of art into subjective and objective told me a great deal. I >still >>did not understand everything he put into these words. I had always felt >in >>art certain divisions and gradations which I could neither define nor >>formulate, and which nobody else had formulated. Nevertheless I knew that >>these divisions and gradations existed. So that all discussions about art >>without the recognition of these divisions and gradations seemed to me >empty >>and useless, simply arguments about words. In what G. had said, in his >>indications of the different levels which we fail to see and understand, I >>felt an approach to the very gradations that I had felt but could not >define. >> >> >> >> >> > > > Tall Ships http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 22:42:49 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA09904; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 22:39:49 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 22:39:49 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980926014026.008f2d00 inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney inforamp.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 01:40:26 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: Whirlpower Theory In-Reply-To: <199809252030.NAA29353 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"fq0Xm2.0.fQ2.au73s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22727 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 01:56 PM 09/25/98 -0700, David wrote: >In your dream did you see a huge whirlpool or was it a huge vortex? Your mentioning "dream" inspired my post. Dreams can be powerful, and they take courage to announce. But I was using the dream idea as a metaphor. "It's my dream too"...Although perhaps I really did "dream" it too, once. I've always been *intrigued* with the idea of a fluidized homopolar generator. Either plasma ... or liquid, or gas; it makes no difference. The "Ranque-Hilsch effect" of the vortex tube also interests me. It's intriguing how it apparently stops working when the "sound" (or "note" ) stops. If Mr. ZPE has found an OU phenomena, I wonder if it is the tie-in to the sonoluminescence ZPE phenomena ...from that Ranque-Hilsch "Note" Perhaps an amplification of the note through resonance design?(How about it, Mr. ZPE?) G. Hathaway, an engineer of impeccable standards, basically disproved free energy probabilities for the standard homopolar generator design [or N machine] several years ago, but the concept of using a liquid or gas vortex as an overunity homopolar generator, is something that has been gnawing at the back of my mind . Even if it does not work for overunity, there still may be some interesting applications for it's use. SPECULATIVE: 1./ An applied magnetic field can orient individual atoms and molecules to spin in the same orientation as the vortex. If there is a current flowing, this may strengthen the vortex through a micro-macro ( quantum spin / ZPE ) interaction. (But pls, don't ask me how it actually works. Talk to Hal ;-) 2./ There is little mechanical interaction, and therefore [hopefully] less friction. 3./ The viscosity *might* be positively affected by current flow. 4./ The high voltage is commutated with a central pointed axial wire, and also with the outer conductive containment walls. The axial momentum of the rotating molecules near the container walls (where the magnetic field is strongest) might change. ( Due to the interaction of the ions, the magnetic field, and the current flow.) ... If so, the vortex may try to pull away somewhat from the container walls, thus reducing friction even further. 5./ The normally high voltage associated with a water vortex generator may be available with the high currents associated with the homopolar designs. Each design by itself, is of limited use. Combined, they may do the "trick". 6./ The conductance of the liquid is varied by adding dilutants, acids, or bases, ... to obtain the necessary engineering trade-off between current and voltage levels. 7./ The vortex tube can achieve RPMs of one million rpm. If water vapor were used instead of air, and a magnetic field added [homopolar config], it just might make a powerful little electric generator. OU? Maybe. > >My theory is very different. I say don't tap the vortex. The vortex MUST NOT >BE DISTURBED. Does anyone get it? > >David Dennard Maybe some of the scientists aboard can say a few words. My ideas of fluid homopolar generators are speculation. So too are my ideas re the ZPE tie-in with the Ranque-Hilsch tube. I have no idea what a real engineer or scientist would think of them. I don't know how gravity could possibly interact with your Whirlpower overunity generator idea, except perhaps, that there has been *more* than one reference to weight loss measurements in some reported overunity devices. Anecdotal .. yes; but numerous enough to take note of. Maybe a gravity expert [or Bearden] could say more about that. There certainly was a mention of a gravity tie-in with the Schaumberger device. Best Regards, and good luck, fellow quester. And...Oh, yes. I agree with ZPE: Listen to the Ross's and Hectors and Stirnimans and Sparbers and Monteverte and Hamdi and Little and Puthoff and Rothwells and a big ETC :-) ... of this list. They may occasionally hurt the ego, but there is a lot of experience and some very good OU ideas on this list. It makes me proud even to be called a Vortex lurker. Colin Quinney. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 22:45:48 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA10554; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 22:44:14 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 22:44:14 -0700 Message-ID: <005d01bde910$c34576e0$898f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Cc: "George" Subject: Magnetron-Driven, Molten Lithium Hydride Centrifugal Fusion Cavity Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 23:43:56 -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: <"mXrWG2.0.la2.ky73s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22728 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Lithium Hydride that melts at about 680 C, if in a resonant cavity formed by spinning the cavity (about 5 inches O.D.)containing the molten hydride while microwaves at 2.45 gigahertz are pumped into the cavity from a magnetron operating at about 15 kilowatts with a hydrogen pressure of a few torr, might get some Hot Fusion going in the kitchen. If it will work in the kitchen, might as well use the standard microwave oven frequency so as to not get in trouble with the FCC, Frank. :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 23:34:19 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA18179; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 23:33:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 23:33:28 -0700 Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 23:34:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809260634.XAA04445 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Whirlpower Theory Resent-Message-ID: <"W4ffJ.0.yR4.tg83s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22729 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Colin, appreciate your thoughts, > I don't know how gravity could possibly interact with your Whirlpower > overunity generator idea, except perhaps, that there has been *more* than > one reference to weight loss measurements in some reported overunity > devices. Anecdotal .. yes; but numerous enough to take note of. Maybe a > gravity expert [or Bearden] could say more about that. There certainly was > a mention of a gravity tie-in with the Schaumberger device. This is what I see too and seems so simple and overlooked in my opinion. I hope a gravity expert will add a thought or two! It is much like a gyroscope slowing down. That wobble. Now I know for a fact if you grab hold of the wobble it has tremendous force and I know by grabbing it and trying to feedback that energy will result in failure as far as energy production. It does have a sort of battery potential just like spinning up a gyro to high speed and draining the spin force off. At this point I want to indroduce another what I call "missing link", being the absence of information or exploration into what I would have thought had been tried, that I have not found any information on. Much like looking for the negative shape of a puzzel when working a large jigsaw puzzel with a lot of blue sky. Are you with me? As I have stated nobody has ever built a giant whirlpool. If they have somebody please tell me where, when, and who. I see this as a huge gap in exploratin. Now I will tell you another huge gap and should be one of the most simple and common physics experiments know to every school child in the world. Are you ready, and somebody please tell me if I am wrong. Blast me right out of the water. Sock it to me! If you can't somebody PLEASE say this needs to be looked into. A top spinning on a turntable. Picture if you will, a top being spun on a turntable. The turntable has a small depression in the center for the top to spin in. The top spins at high speed and then slows and starts to wobble, staying on central spinning point. Then as the wobble increases something happens, the point it is spinning on starts to make little circles. I think this action will turn the turntable. The top will ride along the lip of the depression and bring the speed of the turntable up to the speed of the precession. HAS ANYONE SEEN THIS BEFORE???? I have asked hundreds of people and many scientists and no one has seen it. There is a report of a similar thing about a gyroscope in Scientific American, about a gyroscope through a fulcrum (gimbal) that computers are talking about or something like that. Has anyone seen this article? I heard it came out a few months ago. I actually drew that exact picture in 1995. Now this is about as simple as it gets. The wobble is turning the turntable via the force of gravity. The precession is not actually touched, like in Whirlpower, but not in the "dragging" (omit frame for the time being) sense Whirlpower is infamous for, but across a fulcrum or lever action. The turntable could then maintain the spin of the top with a simple feeback mechanism and turn a generator. You probably pictured a toy top, scale up to a 500 pound top, a shinny stainless steel turntable on impecable bearings. Now you have the picture. Once that baby gets to rocking it would rip your arm off and throw you body half way from here to eternity if you tried to grap it. It only takes a 2 h.p. motor to keep even the large gyros on a sub spinning. It would not take a lot to keep this top spinning. Common sense tell me the turntable will have way, way, way, more than 2 h.p. But most important is, has this been tried and if not why not? I leave this for you to ponder and hope I get a "real" answer. The fate of this planet may weigh in the balance. Drum Roll............................. > > Best Regards, and good luck, fellow quester. The Quest To dream the impossible dream. Man, did I. Way out on a limb. > > And...Oh, yes. I agree with ZPE: Listen to the Ross's and Hectors and > Stirnimans and Sparbers and Monteverte and Hamdi and Little and Puthoff and > Rothwells and a big ETC :-) ... of this list. They may occasionally hurt > the ego, but there is a lot of experience and some very good OU ideas on > this list. It makes me proud even to be called a Vortex lurker. > > Colin Quinney. I am listening and I am looking forward to the answer to "the missing link". David Dennard From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 23:38:44 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA19544; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 23:37:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 23:37:32 -0700 Message-ID: <01eb01bde917$eb4f3c00$ba98a8cf hh2152186.www.surfsouth.com> From: "Bill Wallace" To: Subject: Re: Whirlpower Theory Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 02:09:52 -0400 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: <"9fga2.0.An4.hk83s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22730 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >No, our work is in NO way similar to Schauberger's, and, actually, our web >site never said that we are fashioning our work after Schauberger. We >said, "...the concepts being introduced in these pages have never been >published by anyone before August 19, 1998 and are not similar to anything >ever published before." Our only reference to Schauberger was to say that >he was NOT the man being referred to when we stated, "The hidden physical >principle... was first discovered and correctly identified by a man who >lived long ago.' Ok, so if this man lived a long long time ago and never published how do you know that he was the first to accurately describe the theories? Therefore you must know him personally since there is no written documentation. We also stated that, "...there is absolutely no >comparison in the basic principles at work to anything published in the >past." Therefore this man must know you personally. Or it must be you. >> I wrote but it says they don't want to talk to people >giving this information away, unless they can't get any backing after ten >weeks. > >We definitely WANT to talk to people but we cannot disclose any real >secrets... yet. Our primary reason for the "announcement" and "countdown" >is to FIRST allow ourselves a final chance to locate funding. If after 10 >weeks, funding appears far away then full disclosure will occur on >schedule. Will the list even be able to find out who the funders are or who you are(technology aside) when you decide not to release the data for whatever reason? > (Describing this source would disclose too much...sorry.) But you have already given away so much, the vortex creates the conduit through which the energy flows, how long do you honestly think it will take for others to find they key to open that door now that you have shown us the door? >through computer models of our discovery. The vortex tube itself is not >capable of doing anything more than it was designed to do. That's the >problem with it...the design. So perhaps we need a cone or some other geometric shape, a cylindrical tube is not the right shape? Maybe a twisted cone? >have to say that, unless your "dream" inspired idea was directly from the >Creator of the universe Himself, the chances of your idea being correct is >no better than it would be if you took the hap-hazard approach. Most Well certainly you had inspiration from somewhere Zero, and being as there is NO written documentation either it is your own idea or someone you know, might as well come from god as anyone. You can't be a hero if you hang out with zeros. >genuine discoveries of this magnitudes were either Creator-inspired and/or >the result of a tremendous amount of engineering effort that began with >solid proven facts. > >>Tapping or touching the vortex itself will not work in my opinion and if >it does >it will be very expensive and only yield a small amount of energy. More clues you are giving away, thanks. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 23:42:23 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA20739; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 23:40:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 23:40:07 -0700 From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hansen: Storms: CF research 9.23.98 Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 06:41:29 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <36148c15.33036671 mail-hub> References: <3609C015.3B9E earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <3609C015.3B9E earthlink.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"PwHPr3.0.z35.6n83s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22731 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 23 Sep 1998 22:44:22 -0500, Rich Murray wrote: [snip] >that is the question, but rather the explanation for the observations. I >think the following list of hypotheses covers the possible explanations >for reports of excess heat- >1. Nuclear reaction(s) >2. Chemical reaction(s) including phase changes >3. Calorimetric error(s) >4. Violation of the laws of thermodynamics >5. Fraudulent data [snip] You might consider adding "super chemistry" (a la Mills, Vigier), and possible ZPE related phenomena to the list of possibilities. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 25 23:46:21 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA22672; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 23:43:56 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 23:43:56 -0700 Message-ID: <01fb01bde918$d0371680$ba98a8cf hh2152186.www.surfsouth.com> From: "Bill Wallace" To: "Jeannette Clark" , Subject: Re: Whirlpower Theory Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 02:42:02 -0400 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: <"Yi4Fg.0.5Y5.hq83s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22732 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >At least we agree on this much and if you find "not enough" energy in your >system on down the line perhaps you will take a closer look at mine. That is if >I don't get any where by then. If you aren't tapping into heat or gravity, it >will be very interesting to see what else there might be! May I make a suggestion, apparently he has investors willing to spend big bucks, just find out who they are or make it known on this list you are lookins at the same things as zero and then perhaps you can get access to that money too. >My concept foundation is solid, a giant whirlpool, proven it is not. What looms >up to me is why has no one ever built a giant whirlpool and tested it, or even >theorized it. It seems to be a gapeing hole in the exploration or vortex type >science. The missing link so to speak. Perhaps lack of funding, but now there seems to be interested people, being that water molecules are just tiny magnets, perhaps there is something to this whirlpool with water, what other fluids have you looked at for whirlpool effects? Superfluids? >Actually it was Creator inspired. And shown to me as the Holy Grail with all >the power and the glory. That is why I am driven so, against all odds and >insults. > Nothing drives a person so assuredly as a belief, beyond all money and power. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 26 04:18:32 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA29177; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 04:14:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 04:14:42 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 01:12:46 -1000 To: Vortex-L From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Art Bell: Greer has hot OU device Resent-Message-ID: <"0dhU41.0.p77.YoC3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22733 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On the Friday night 9/25/98 Art Bell show, UFO guy Steven Greer ( http://www.cseti.org ) claims to be in the process of helping to break an important OU device out into the public. The device is not his own, but was shown to him by a third party company. He's arranging verification tests at independent labs, and expects it is a principle/device which will move well to commercialization for home power generation and may be compact and powerful enough for vehicle propulsion. Sounded credible to hear him tell about it, but almost no details as usual. Some paranoia about the technology being suppressed if not handled properly, etc. Anyone have any clues on the nature of this one, or who is involved? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 26 06:11:32 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA09991; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 06:09:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 06:09:16 -0700 Message-ID: <360CE932.5CD7BDFB ix.netcom.com> Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 06:16:34 -0700 From: Akira Kawasaki X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Off topic encyclopedia Question References: <000e01bde8d4$2bacd620$898f85ce default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"7BzMW2.0.vR2.xTE3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22734 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Sept. 26, 1998 Fred, you wrote: > I was Ed, but that $795.00 McGraw-Hill Multimedia Encyclopedia of Science > and Technology CD purchase, sparked a bit curiosity about something that > caught my eye. :-) Off topic question to your microwave thread: I checked on the publication you list at $795.00. Amazon.com lists it at $995.00 (discounted!?). Where was your Amazing source? I notice a hardbound edition available at $200.00. Anything more in a CD-Rom aside from the multimedia media format? And what about annual updates? Perhaps an owner's review could help us decide on the desirability of the resource. "Taint cheap" but maybe it's content detail makes it worth it. Is it on a single CD-ROM? Thanks -ak- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 26 06:35:20 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA15972; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 06:32:31 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 06:32:31 -0700 X-AirNote: 1 X-AIGTO: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-ID: <01BDE928.6D4D7B80.zpe pdq.net> From: ZPE To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Whirlpower Theory Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 08:34:01 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 Encoding: 155 TEXT Resent-Message-ID: <"fqVCA3.0.Uv3.kpE3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22735 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Bill, You're reading into my statements more than what's there. I'll try to clarify... ZPE wrote: | >No, our work is in NO way similar to Schauberger's, and, actually, our web | >site never said that we are fashioning our work after Schauberger. We | >said, "...the concepts being introduced in these pages have never been | >published by anyone before August 19, 1998 and are not similar to anything | >ever published before." Our only reference to Schauberger was to say that | >he was NOT the man being referred to when we stated, "The hidden physical | >principle... was first discovered and correctly identified by a man who | >lived long ago.' | Bill wrote: | Ok, so if this man lived a long long time ago and never published how do you | know that he was the first to accurately describe the theories? Therefore | you must know him personally since there is no written documentation. While he never "published" in the sense of producing widely publically available material on his theories on this specific topic, he is very published in other areas of physics. In fact, he and his achievements can be found in history and science textbooks! | ZPE wrote: | We also stated that, "...there is absolutely no | >comparison in the basic principles at work to anything published in the | >past." | Bill wrote: | Therefore this man must know you personally. Or it must be you. | I could say that I resent the implication that I am intentionally lying to everyone by painting a false image of the man, but I have no resentment toward you or anyone, so I won't say it. However, I will respond. No, I don't know him personally and no, he's not me. David wrote: | >> I wrote but it says they don't want to talk to people | >giving this information away, unless they can't get any backing after ten | >weeks. | > ZPE wrote: | >We definitely WANT to talk to people but we cannot disclose any real | >secrets... yet. Our primary reason for the "announcement" and "countdown" | >is to FIRST allow ourselves a final chance to locate funding. If after 10 | >weeks, funding appears far away then full disclosure will occur on | >schedule. | Bill wrote: | Will the list even be able to find out who the funders are or who you | are(technology aside) when you decide not to release the data for whatever | reason? | Disclosing who the funders are will be primarily up to the funders themselves. And as far as disclosing my identity, this is what I have planned to do all along. Although I can't see how that would help anyone and I CAN see how that could put myself, family and friends in a position of potential danger since we really do have the answer to F/E and there's a lot of people who would do literally ANYTHING to get their hands on what we have. But I have my reasons for not being worried about that so I still plan to tell everyone who we are. I am even tossing around the idea of making gradual disclosure of the "new physics" we've discovered after we've had a chance to establish a good business position (i.e. accelerated and fully funded R&D and marketing effort). However, that is not entirely up to me to decide since such would affect all parties involved. ZPE wrote: | > (Describing this source would disclose too much...sorry.) | Bill wrote: | But you have already given away so much, the vortex creates the conduit | through which the energy flows, how long do you honestly think it will take | for others to find they key to open that door now that you have shown us the | door? | The vortex as an possible "energy conduit" is nothing new, so that "door" has been known already. Maybe a few like you are just now coming around to realizing that possibility. If so, that's OK too. ZPE wrote: | >through computer models of our discovery. The vortex tube itself is not | >capable of doing anything more than it was designed to do. That's the | >problem with it...the design. | Bill wrote: | So perhaps we need a cone or some other geometric shape, a cylindrical tube | is not the right shape? Maybe a twisted cone? | Design all you like, but without a solid conceptual foundation to start from, it's just another lottery game. ZPE wrote: | >have to say that, unless your "dream" inspired idea was directly from the | >Creator of the universe Himself, the chances of your idea being correct is | >no better than it would be if you took the hap-hazard approach. Most | Bill wrote: | Well certainly you had inspiration from somewhere Zero, and being as there | is NO written documentation either it is your own idea or someone you know, | might as well come from god as anyone. You can't be a hero if you hang out | with zeros. | Zero? Let's see... HMMMMM. Now, let me analyze this a moment....We have the answer to F/E....and you don't....and we won't tell you any details. HMMMMM. OH! I understand now! You resent me and are now calling me names. Is that right? Well, I understand your resentment and I TRULY wish there was some other way. But WE made the discovery so WE have the right to at least establish some kind of lead on the inevitable competition. If you say there's something wrong with that then you must also disagree with the whole concept of the patenting process, keeping trade secrets, etc. Also, who's hanging out with "zeros"? All my responses are sent to all list members for everyone's benefit. Are you saying that all list members are "zeros"? (though a few probably are) ZPE wrote: | >genuine discoveries of this magnitudes were either Creator-inspired and/or | >the result of a tremendous amount of engineering effort that began with | >solid proven facts. | > David wrote: | >>Tapping or touching the vortex itself will not work in my opinion and if | >it does | >it will be very expensive and only yield a small amount of energy. | Bill wrote: | More clues you are giving away, thanks. | More clues? You misinterpreted that last statement as being mine. It was David Dennard's. There is actually huge amounts of energy available via the vortex. ZPE From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 26 07:06:14 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA24695; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 07:04:45 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 07:04:45 -0700 Message-ID: <00c801bde956$ac98db80$898f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Subject: McGraw-Hill | Multimedia Encyclopedia of Science & Technology (http://www.pbg.m Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 08:04:14 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_01BDE924.40A21360" 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: <"gnAXz2.0.m16.yHF3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22736 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_0004_01BDE924.40A21360 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [Professional Book Group] [The McGraw-Hill Companies] [Contact Us] [Book = Catalog]=20 =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- McGraw-Hill Multimedia Encyclopedia of=20 Science & Technology, Release 2.0 =20 [More Info] [Screen Previews] [Ordering Info] [Order Online] [EST]=20 "We needed it, we asked for it, we got it: The serious science = encyclopedia in an easy-to-use design. No extraneous bells and whistles, = just lots of meat-and-potato science." --Library Journal=20 "A powerful way to learn science." --BYTE=20 "Scientists and enthusiasts who prized the hard copy edition will = love the CD-ROM version. It's lean, mean, and effective -- a powerful = resource that wears its learning lightly. It installs and boots up = without making a fuss, and its user interface has the intuitive ease = that has become almost essential... Its search engine is efficient and = free of idiosyncracies. It can display multiple articles simultaneously, = each in its own window, a handy feature." --Scientific American, November 1996=20 All reviews of previous editions.=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- Your search for a single comprehensive source of scientific information = is over. The McGraw-Hill Multimedia Encyclopedia of Science & = Technology, Release 2.0 delivers the complete world of science in a = single CD-ROM. Spectacular color images, superb animations, = crystal-clear audio presentations, and interactive maps, charts, and = tables let you explore scientific information in ways that transcend the = printed page.=20 Combining the strengths of the award-winning McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of = Science & Technology and the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and = Technical Terms, this revolutionary research and learning tool provides = instant access to authoritative information in 81 major areas of science = and engineering.=20 Thanks to a powerful search engine, users can spend more time working = with information and less time tracking it down. Keyword, Boolean, and = context-relevant searching allow you to search the Encyclopedia's 7,100 = articles in just seconds--with total confidence that your research is = complete and accurate.=20 Call 1-800-722-4726 to order your full copy of the=20 Multimedia Encyclopedia of Science & Technology.=20 If you are not satisfied, return it within 30 days for a full refund. We now offer three simple price options -- single user, LAN user for = multiple workstations, and WAN user for multiple sites. All three give = you great savings on the world's premier science and technology = resource!=20 a.. 7,100 articles written by 3,000 world-renowned scientists and = engineers ensure absolute authority.=20 b.. 122,000+ clear, concise definitions from the McGraw-Hill = Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, hyperlinked to the = articles for quick access.=20 c.. Powerful filtering allows you to browse encyclopedia articles = listed by 21 major subjects and nearly 100 subtopics -- providing fast = access to the information you want,.=20 d.. Over 1,400 high-resolution color graphics, photos, maps, charts, = and tables enhance information quality and visual appeal.=20 e.. More than 30 new high-quality topographic maps have been added = to this version, with new climate data tables.=20 f.. 66 superb animation sequences bring you the world of science in = full motion.=20 g.. 60 minutes of clear audio narrations accompany the animations to = help readers understand important scientific concepts in action.=20 h.. Keyword, Boolean, and context relevant searching ensure fast, = flexible and thorough research -- and now you can expand your search to = include the Internet!=20 i.. Extensive hyperlinked cross-references let you jump to related = articles with ease and speed.=20 j.. Study Guides offer lists of articles in specific curriculum for = comprehensive study.=20 Any questions? Please e-mail John Kwasek!=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- Copyright =A9 1998 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved. Any = use is subject to the Terms of Use; the corporation also has a = comprehensive Privacy Policy governing information we may collect from = our customers.=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BDE924.40A21360 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable McGraw-Hill | Multimedia Encyclopedia = of Science & Technology
 
3DMcGraw-Hill=20[Professional Book Group] [The McGraw-Hill Companies] [Contact Us] [Book Catalog]

McGraw-Hill Multimedia Encyclopedia of
Science & Technology, = Release=20 2.0


[More Info] [Screen=20 Previews] [Ordering Info] [Order Online] [EST]

"We needed it, we asked for it, we got it: The serious = science=20 encyclopedia in an easy-to-use design. No extraneous bells and = whistles,=20 just lots of meat-and-potato science."
--Library = Journal=20

"A powerful way to learn = science."
--BYTE

"Scientists and enthusiasts who prized the hard copy = edition=20 will love the CD-ROM version. It's lean, mean, and effective -- a = powerful=20 resource that wears its learning lightly. It installs and boots up = without=20 making a fuss, and its user interface has the intuitive ease that = has become=20 almost essential... Its search engine is efficient and free of=20 idiosyncracies. It can display multiple articles simultaneously, = each in its=20 own window, a handy feature."
--Scientific American, = November 1996

All reviews of previous = editions.=20

Your search for a single comprehensive source of scientific = information is=20 over. The McGraw-Hill Multimedia Encyclopedia of Science & = Technology,=20 Release 2.0 delivers the complete world of science in a single = CD-ROM.=20 Spectacular color images, superb animations, crystal-clear audio = presentations,=20 and interactive maps, charts, and tables let you explore scientific = information=20 in ways that transcend the printed page.=20

Combining the strengths of the award-winning McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of = Science &=20 Technology and the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical = Terms,=20 this revolutionary research and learning tool provides instant access to = authoritative information in 81 major areas of science and engineering.=20

Thanks to a powerful search engine, users can spend more time working = with=20 information and less time tracking it down. Keyword, Boolean, and=20 context-relevant searching allow you to search the Encyclopedia's 7,100 = articles in=20 just seconds--with total confidence that your research is complete and = accurate.=20

Call 1-800-722-4726 to order your full copy of the=20
Multimedia Encyclopedia of Science & Technology.
If = you are=20 not satisfied, return it within 30 days for a full refund.

We now offer three simple price options -- single user, LAN user for = multiple=20 workstations, and WAN user for multiple sites. All three give you great = savings=20 on the world's premier science and technology resource!=20

3DFeatures

  • 7,100 articles written by 3,000 world-renowned scientists = and=20 engineers ensure absolute authority.=20
  • 122,000+ clear, concise definitions from the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical=20 Terms, hyperlinked to the articles for quick access.=20
  • Powerful filtering allows you to browse encyclopedia = articles=20 listed by 21 major subjects and nearly 100 subtopics -- = providing fast access to the information you want,.=20
  • Over 1,400 high-resolution color graphics, photos, maps, = charts, and=20 tables enhance information quality and visual appeal.=20
  • More than 30 new high-quality topographic maps have been = added to=20 this version, with new climate data tables.=20
  • 66 superb animation sequences bring you the world of = science in=20 full motion.=20
  • 60 minutes of clear audio narrations accompany the = animations to=20 help readers understand important scientific concepts in action.=20
  • Keyword, Boolean, and context relevant searching ensure = fast,=20 flexible and thorough research -- and now you can = expand=20 your search to include the Internet!=20
  • Extensive hyperlinked cross-references let you jump to = related=20 articles with ease and speed.=20
  • Study Guides offer lists of articles in specific = curriculum for=20 comprehensive study.


Any questions? Please e-mail John Kwasek!=20


Copyright=20 © 1998 The McGraw-Hill = Companies.=20 All rights reserved. Any use is subject to the Term= s of=20 Use; the corporation also has a comprehensive Priv= acy=20 Policy governing information we may collect from our = customers. ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BDE924.40A21360-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 26 07:37:21 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA31920; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 07:36:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 07:36:41 -0700 Message-ID: <00f301bde95b$2422d440$898f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Off topic encyclopedia Question Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 08:37:03 -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: <"tBvFt.0.go7.vlF3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22737 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Akira Kawasaki To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Saturday, September 26, 1998 7:12 AM Subject: Off topic encyclopedia Question Akira wrote: >Sept. 26, 1998 > >Fred, you wrote: > >> I was Ed, but that $795.00 McGraw-Hill Multimedia Encyclopedia of Science >> and Technology CD purchase, sparked a bit curiosity about something that >> caught my eye. :-) > >Off topic question to your microwave thread: > >I checked on the publication you list at $795.00. Amazon.com lists it at >$995.00 (discounted!?). Where was your Amazing source? I notice a hardbound >edition available at $200.00. Anything more in a CD-Rom aside from the >multimedia media format? And what about annual updates? Perhaps an owner's >review could help us decide on the desirability of the resource. "Taint >cheap" but maybe it's content detail makes it worth it. Is it on a single >CD-ROM? Thanks It isn't cheap, but worth the $795 and $195/year update. That CD plastic must be worth about a quarter. :-) I like the use of equations and the Bibliographies on a given topic. Did the web page come through? Best, Fred > >-ak- > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 26 09:10:47 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA23233; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 09:10:05 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 09:10:05 -0700 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 09:06:46 -0700 Subject: Re: Art Bell: Greer has hot OU device Message-ID: <19980926.090649.12070.1.tv juno.com> References: X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-19,21-23,25,27,29,31-42 From: tv juno.com (Tim Vaughan) Resent-Message-ID: <"rxtNG2.0.rg5.S7H3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22738 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Rick, I wonder if it is Correa's Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge device (PAGD). Greer said it was not anything chemical when asked by Bell if it had anything to do with cold fusion. Greer also said it needed electrical input to get excess output. Was not clear whether it was patented or not. PAGD is patented, Greer is looking for some engineers and scientists to test. I understand that Correa is going to give update at the Infinite Energy conference on Oct. 11. Good to know that they are still at it. Tim ( tv juno.com ) On Sat, 26 Sep 1998 01:12:46 -1000 Rick Monteverde writes: >On the Friday night 9/25/98 Art Bell show, UFO guy Steven Greer ( >http://www.cseti.org ) claims to be in the process of helping to >break an important OU device out into the public. The device is not his own, >but was shown to him by a third party company. He's arranging verification >tests at independent labs, and expects it is a principle/device which will move >well to commercialization for home power generation and may be compact and >powerful enough for vehicle propulsion. Sounded credible to hear him >tell about it, but almost no details as usual. Some paranoia about the >technology being suppressed if not handled properly, etc. > >Anyone have any clues on the nature of this one, or who is involved? > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > > > ___________________________________________________________________ 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 Sat Sep 26 11:06:36 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA15887; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 11:01:58 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 11:01:58 -0700 Message-Id: <199809261803.NAA21931 neon.prysm.net> From: "Robert H. Calloway" To: Subject: tornadoes Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 12:52:24 -0500 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: <"Fkqey1.0.8u3.LmI3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22739 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: As cold air meets warm air, a unique action happens. The two slide past one another in a partial collision. This forces the air to swirl causing the "donut" or whirlpool of air to form. As the whirlpool builds forcing it to spiral into a vortex tube, power is multiplied as it moves into and down the vortex. The whirlpool is actually forcing the vortex to form. The area of torque is greater in the whirlpool and all this torque is being passed into and through the vortex causing great power in the lower half of the vortex. It is much like a corkscrew, power is being generated in the turning motion at the top of the screw and transferred through the shaft to the wood. In a whirlpool though, we have a multiplying factor as the air is forced into a smaller swirling area called the vortex. Another interesting effect using this thought is the whirlpool once formed would have a siphoning effect once started. The vortex now forced to be formed would cause a pressure differential to decrease in the vortex causing the whirlpool to attract more power from cold and warm air meeting, making a larger tornado. So actually the tornado is two distinct happenings. The whirlpool can form without making a vortex, but the vortex needs a whirlpool to bring it into exsistence. I cannot see were gravity has any contributions to these happenings in a tornado. In many pictures some vortexes are from cloud to cloud on a horizonal plane. Some have been seen to go straight up. I think gravity has no control in the building of a tornado. Hurricanes are nothing more than large whirlpools without the vortex. Their area is much to large to force a vortex to be formed of such magnitude, although they spawn tornadoes wich is commonly known. The most interesting to me using this thought is the swirling galaxies. Here we have to bring gravity into the picture or would we? Maybe the power of the whirlpool of galaxies overcomes gravity at the beginning? Maybe when the whirlpool forces a vortex to form then gravity takes control much like the pressure differential decreasing in the vortex of a tornado causing a never ending desire for more matter. Unfortunatly we could not see the vortex because it has passed the speed of light, but we can see its effects on other surroundings. Maybe there is temperture differentials in deep space starting whirlpools of matter. We know here on earth that warm and cold are in constant war with each other. Who knows, maybe it happens in deep space. Regards, Robert H. Calloway From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 26 12:37:39 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA03926; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 12:34:36 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 12:34:36 -0700 Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 12:35:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809261935.MAA05150 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Whirlpower Resent-Message-ID: <"DpLnk3.0.Fz.B7K3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22740 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To all, I got this response off board, but I want to bring it on board. If you consider this not appropriate, let me say, I am bringing information on board I want to answer on board. I don't have time to answer everyone off board that doesn't want their answer seen, if be the case. I wrote; > > >If Ross wants to say the moon is riding on its own generated tidal wave, > >that the moon is causing a tidalwave, exposes more Earth that pulls the > Moon, > > > >Perpetual Moon Surfing Ross > > > >Can the moon generate a tidal wave and then ride it? > > > >Now that would be perpetual motion! > > > >I think I got you Ross, you can't have it both ways. > > > >If the Moon generates the action it is trying to tap it would lose power. > To do > >it and gain orbital radius would be perpetual motion and in violation of the > > >laws of physics. > > > >If the wobble of the Earth which also exposes more of the Earth and pulls > the > >Moon by frame dragging were considered, and confirmed as the Real Unified > Field > >Theory the laws of physics would not be violated. Now, for us to come all > this > >way and change the most basic law here just for this particular > circumstance; I > >will just have to accept it, since I am not in a posistion to protect > myself. > >But I call 'em like I see 'em. > > > >I just won this debate! > > > >David Dennard Robin van Spaandonk wrote; > No, I'm afraid you lost this one too. While the Moon is required for > the tides, it doesn't actually supply the energy. The energy derives > from the rotational energy of the Earth, which is continually slowing > down. As well as supplying energy to the tides, the Earth is also > supplying energy to the Moon, causing it to move further away from the > Earth. This added to what Ross said, action reaction is starting to get into double reflection. I think you are both painting yourselves into a corner. And you are not even considering the wobble of the Earth. It has to play a part in there somewhere. Let me ask, does the Earth wobble? And does that wobble effect the Moon? And why don't you add this into the equation? Just the wobble itself will slow the spin of the Earth even if the Moon was not there. It has to be considered. When the Earth wobbles it drags the Moon much like you say the tides drag the moon. If fact I would say it is much more powerful in its drag effect. Does anyone else see this? Am I the only one here that sees the wobble of the Earth affecting the moon? Has no one ever said the wobble of the Earth affects the Moon? And the Moon slows down the spin of the Earth making it wobble even more. I don't see how a few feet of tide water is going to come any where near the actual wobble of the Earth itself in energy affect. The wobble is moving the entire Earth. The tide is such an insignificent effect in comparison I would think any scientist would call your argument ludicrous and absurd. But I think what your are saying is the standard, is it not? And that is the problem, the standard is wrong! David Dennard From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 26 13:18:13 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA13172; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 13:15:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 13:15:17 -0700 Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 13:15:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809262015.NAA21109 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: Whirlpower Theory Resent-Message-ID: <"Nfrdx2.0.kD3.KjK3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22741 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To all, Again, I got this off board. Why do some of you not want your words seen? I wrote: > >This is what I see too and seems so simple and overlooked in my opinion. I > >hope > >a gravity expert will add a thought or two! > > > >It is much like a gyroscope slowing down. That wobble. Now I know for a > fact > >if you grab hold of the wobble it has tremendous force and I know by > grabbing > >it > >and trying to feedback that energy will result in failure as far as energy > >production. It does have a sort of battery potential just like spinning up > a > >gyro to high speed and draining the spin force off. > > > >At this point I want to indroduce another what I call "missing link", being > >the > >absence of information or exploration into what I would have thought had > been > >tried, that I have not found any information on. Much like looking for the > >negative shape of a puzzel when working a large jigsaw puzzel with a lot of > >blue > >sky. Are you with me? > > > >As I have stated nobody has ever built a giant whirlpool. If they have > >somebody > >please tell me where, when, and who. I see this as a huge gap in > exploratin. > > > >Now I will tell you another huge gap and should be one of the most simple > and > >common physics experiments know to every school child in the world. > > > >Are you ready, and somebody please tell me if I am wrong. Blast me right > out > >of > >the water. Sock it to me! If you can't somebody PLEASE say this needs to > be > >looked into. > > > >A top spinning on a turntable. > > > >Picture if you will, a top being spun on a turntable. The turntable has a > >small > >depression in the center for the top to spin in. The top spins at high > speed > >and then slows and starts to wobble, staying on central spinning point. > Then > >as > >the wobble increases something happens, the point it is spinning on starts > to > >make little circles. I think this action will turn the turntable. The top > >will > >ride along the lip of the depression and bring the speed of the turntable up > >to > >the speed of the precession. > > > >HAS ANYONE SEEN THIS BEFORE???? > > > >I have asked hundreds of people and many scientists and no one has seen it. > >There is a report of a similar thing about a gyroscope in Scientific > American, > >about a gyroscope through a fulcrum (gimbal) that computers are talking > about > >or > >something like that. Has anyone seen this article? I heard it came out a > few > >months ago. I actually drew that exact picture in 1995. > > > >Now this is about as simple as it gets. The wobble is turning the turntable > >via > >the force of gravity. Mitchell Jones wrote; > > ***{Not exactly. Gravity, by pulling the top down, enables the point of the > top to exert a force on the turntable. Notice he did not answer the direct question as to has this been tried. Work, however, is not force alone, > but force times distance moved in the direction of the force. Thus the > action of gravity does not impart any energy to this system. It merely > supplies a force which presses the tip against the turntable, No, it makes the top wobble. The wobble has force and distance traveled too, i.e. work. thereby > permitting friction to transfer energy away from the top. The motion is > supplied by the spin of the top and, once the spin ceases, the energy > transfer ceases. The top just lays there, imparting no further energy, > despite the fact that the force of gravity continues to press it against > the table. Actually in this case in would be laying on a spinning turntable. > > Since a chair with one leg tends to topple over, so does the top. However, > because of the spin, conservation of angular momentum applies: the spin > axis of the top tends to hold its orientation unless acted on by an > external force. The forces available are (a) air resistance, which slows > the spin without affecting the spin axis, and (b) friction between the > spinning tip and the turntable. If we simplify by assuming the top is > spinning in a vacuum, then friction between the tip and the turntable is > the only way to bleed off the angular momentum. That occurs via heating at > the contact point, and via the imparting of a (slight) spin to the > turntable. Show me some data here. This experiment must have been preformed. I see a turntable spinning with the same rate as the precession. Not slight at all. Data please. The precession of the top while the angular momentum is bleeding > off is due to the fact that the contact area where the tip touches the > turntable is never centered perfectly on the spin axis. Hence there is a > small off-balance force tending to twist the spin axis. But there is no > extra energy in such a system. When you add up the frictional heating and > the spin energy imparted to the turntable, it will be identically equal to > the original spin energy of the top itself. Again, show me the data. > > Bottom line: your opinion that this system will somehow obtain additional > energy from "gravity" is, as far as I can see, an empty assertion which is > utterly contrary to everything that has been determined experimentally > about these systems over the last few hundred years. If you want to have a > real discussion of this topic, I think you need to explain in a concrete > and coherent way precisely where this putative extra energy comes from. Real Bottom Line: I think you should give some reference of a top spinning on a turntable that backs up your answer. Surely if this is something so well know for a hundred years there is a paper or reference to a top spinning on a turntable somewhere, with data of the experiments and results of the tests. This putative energy (whatever that means) comes from gravity. You know the force that already suppies most of the electrical energy to this country. It is not some wild concept but a real thing. The wobble is an action of gravity just like water running down hill is an action of gravity. Only the hill is spiral and infinate. By tapping the sleeper force, without touching it, in the examples I have given, (Whirlpower and the "Tip Top" as I like to call it), gravitational energy can be produced. It is also the same force that the Moon is feeding on. And is the explaination to Vera Rubin's mysterious dark matter in the spiral galaxy. And very soon I will prove it all, or die trying. But I am not as afraid as ZPE, for I have nothing to hide and nothing to lose, and a little "help" from above. David Dennard "The Real Phoenix" I will concede "Tip Top" if actual data can be produced to it being tried under the circumstances I have proposed. If not, I don't see how any one would not want to find out what really happens, unless they are part ostrich or oil rich. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 26 14:35:36 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA32725; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 14:28:46 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 14:28:46 -0700 X-AirNote: 1 X-AIGTO: vortex-L eskimo.com Message-ID: <01BDE96A.F80ABB60.zpe pdq.net> From: ZPE To: "'David Dennard'" , "vortex-L eskimo.com" Subject: RE: Whirlpower Theory Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 16:30:14 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 Encoding: 17 TEXT Resent-Message-ID: <"N26_r3.0.8_7.DoL3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22742 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Saturday, September 26, 1998 3:16 PM, David Dennard [SMTP:jclark dcn.davis.ca.us] wrote: | And very soon I will prove it all, or die trying. But I am not as afraid as | ZPE, for I have nothing to hide and nothing to lose, and a little "help" from | above. David, Fear has absolutely nothing to do with why I have my secrets. Here's a little advise you may listen to (I hope)... Proverbs 12:23 A prudent man concealeth knowledge: but the heart of fools proclaimeth foolishness. Proverbs 14:15 The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going. Proverbs 22:3 A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth (prepares)himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished. ZPE From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 26 17:12:22 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA12815; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 17:11:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 17:11:21 -0700 Message-ID: <360D75D8.1B7F earthlink.net> Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 18:16:40 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Storms: Blue: CF discussions 9.25.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"rVfA81.0.983.eAO3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22743 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Subject: Re: Blue: Storms: CF research 9.23.98 Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 09:53:00 -0600 From: Edmund Storms To: rmforall earthlink.net 9/24/98 Reponse to Blue 23 Sept 1998 Rich et al. Dick Blue and I start from such different points in this discussion that we are not even speaking the same language. I would like to make several points clear: 1. I have no objection to discussing nuclear reactions. I have mentioned nuclear reactions in several of my past messages, and will do so in the future. The problem is that I have not done so in the manner Dick Blue requires. I will try to do better. 2. I use the term “hot fusion” to describe the nuclear events observed when fusion takes place in a plasma, because Dick Blue uses this experience to evaluate the CANR claims. I do not understand his objection to using “hot fusion” as a shortcut designation for this behavior. Dick Blue rejects the idea that fusion might have different characteristics, if it should occur under different conditions. This is one major disconnect between our points of view. 3. We all agree that calorimetry by itself does not reveal the source of the heat. However, when the measured energy is far above any conceivable chemical reaction, then all scientists, physicists included, should show an interest, rather than rejecting the claims. In the absence of any detectable chemical products, and in the absence of error, a nuclear reaction is a reasonable suggestion. Therefore, it is important to discuss error and chemistry, as we search for the nuclear product we all would like to see revealed. 4. CANR reactions do not emit significant neutrons. Therefore, the experiment Dr. Blue proposes has been done, and the results are known. What does this demonstrate? Are we to conclude, as does Dick Blue, that because neutrons are emitted when fusion occurs in a plasma, and are absent during CANR that CANR is not fusion? 5. As for testing hypothesis, we in the field are doing this all the time. However, some of the hypothesis Dick Blue wants to explore we have already rejected, and others are still open to question. If Dick Blue would engage in a cooperative discussion, rather than summarily rejecting all arguments which support CANR having a nuclear component, I would be happy to test hypothesis with him. 6. Temperature is an issue only because there is insufficient energy available at room temperature to overcome the coulomb barrier by brute force alone. We all agree to this fact! If the claimed nuclear reactions do occur, a more subtle process must be operating. It is the nature of this proposed subtle process we are trying to understand. Nature has directed our attention in a new direction, and, I for one, see some benefit in following the path to see where it goes. Is Dr. Blue willing to explore this path, or does he insist we keep to the well-worn highway? 7. Dick Blue still has not discussed the implications of neutron, tritium, helium, and radioactivity production. Are we seeing direct evidence for unexpected nuclear reactions, or are we not? If Dick Blue has already concluded that the heat is not nuclear, and detection of the various nuclear products results from sloppy work, we have very little to discuss. However, if Dick Blue wants to explore, accepting for the moment that these claims are real, then we can arrive at mutually agreeable hypothesis which can be tested against present or future knowledge. It is Dick Blue’s style I object to. Regards, Ed Storms Subject: Re:Hansen: Storms 9/24 Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 11:50:20 -0600 From: Edmund Storms To: rmforall earthlink.net 9/24/98 response to Hansen, 23/ Sept. 1998 Rich et al. OK, let’s start with Dr. Hansen’s five possible explanations: 1. Nuclear 2. Chemical 3. Error 4. Violation of thermo. laws 5. Fraud I think we all agree that 4 and 5 are not worth discussing, as Dr. Hansen suggests. Let’s discuss each item starting with #3. 3. Error is always present in every measurement, and methods of evaluation have been developed in other fields which use the same type of apparatus. The problem with this field is the very high standards being applied, because a nuclear reaction seems so implausible. Added to this problem is an unwillingness by some people to examine the potential errors without emotional bias. I think we could arrive at agreement, if this were any other field besides CANR. Suppose we assume the extra heat is not nuclear, and explore whether an extraordinary chemical reaction is the source. Would this help? 2. A limited number of chemical reactions are possible in a P-F cell. Different reactions are possible in the many other environments which have claimed excess energy. Should we discuss all the conceivable reactions in each environment? Do you think a variety of chemical reactions are the source of this claimed extra energy? 1. Anomalous nuclear reactions are observed. Granted, only a few have been associated with the extra energy. What about the rest? Are they real or are they error? If they are real, we at least have some reason to believe an unusual process exists which can initiate nuclear reactions at room temperature. If this is the case, the leap to a heat-helium relationship is made easier. Would you agree?. Regards, Ed. Storms Subject: Re: Storms: Blue: can we find common ground re CF? 9.22.98 Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 11:03:53 -0400 (EDT) From: "Richard A Blue" To: rmforall earthlink.net > > If the observations rather than theory are assumed to be wrong, we have > two problems: > > 1. How can so many expert and competent scientists be making such gross > errors? This is not a trivial question, and I hope Dr. Blue will not > treat it as such. Skeptical people far more skilled than Dr. Blue have > examined several studies in detail, and failed to find any significant > experimental flaws. If these data are wrong, we are in an awkward > position of having to question some basic tools of modern science. > > 2. We are left with nothing more to discuss. > > If some of these observations are accepted, then we have one problem: > > 1. Some part of conventional experience has been misinterpreted, or does > not apply to these conditions. Can you think of another possibility? > Can we explore this possible deficiency as one solution to the problem? > Ed Storms returns to his old theme that there can be some unspecified "special condition of matter", in which normal expectations for nuclear reaction physics are set aside, and simply do not apply. I would suggest that this is a very slippery slope. Once you suggest that the some aspect of our understanding is nothing more than a theoretical construct, subject to revision on a whim, then what is it that restricts our considerations to only a revision of nuclear reaction physics? Why don't these "special condtions" disrupt chemical reactions or chemical thermodynamics to such a degree that the "excess heat" interpretation is no longer valid? Clearly Ed Storms wants a selective revision in the behavior of some small subset of a very limited class of specific physical systems. He wants the nuclear physics to misbehave only for a PdD lattice, and only under some unspecified and unobserved "special condition." Clearly what I have frequently described is "conventional" nuclear physics. You may attempt to denigrate it as being "theory", but that is a misuse of the term. The theory is merely a concise way of summarizing a vast body of experimental evidence, and it is that experimental evidence that Ed Storms must challange, if he is to make his case for CANR. If we agree that we are considering a nuclear system that consists of deuterium in the initial state and primarily 4He in the final state; and furthermore assert that a transistion from one to the other involves a release of 23 MeV per 4He formed, we are talking about fusion regardless of what terminology you clutter up the discussion with. There may, perhaps, be some intermediate state of arbitray complexity cloaked in the deep mysteries of quantum behavior of a collective state. Indeed, there must be something like that, if Ed Storms is correct. The alternative that I think must be kept on the table is that the claimed excess heat is bogus -- nothing more than an artifact of the experiment. As for explaining how it can be that capable people make such errors, I leave that to another discussion for now. Let me suggest that the CANR debate has reached a point where nothing constructive can be done, unless there is progress in either establishing by experiment the existance of some assumed "special condition", or by a new contribution to our theoretical understanding of these systems, that can account, in some sense, for the observational claims. However, I should make it clear that an experimental observation relating to a "special condition" must, in some sense, be independent of the calorimetric measurements, if we to avoid a very tight loop of circular reasoning. What I have, in fact, been suggesting is that nine years of research in this field has not turned up anything very promising in the way of a theory for cold fusion. While several ideas have been floated and sunk, I am not aware of anything out there that deserves much further debate. On topic that I think can be laid to rest in this regard is the reduction in the coulomb interaction strength to which Ed Storms makes reference. The role of the coulomb interaction in maintaining nuclear separations in a solid lattice is, it seems, rather poorly understood by many who seek to invoke a change in said interaction to allow for cold fusion. The wrong notion that continues to circulate is that it is the repulsion between positively charged nuclei that keeps them at lattice spacings far too large for nuclear interactions to be significant. Then, or so the argument goes, some rearrangement of atomic electrons brought about by chemistry offers the possibility for a neutralization of the coulomb potential so two deuterons (for example) can snuggle up for a close encounter of the fusion kind. It is simplistic thinking, that is fundamentally incorrect. Atomic lattice spacings are not simply maintained by the positive nuclear charge. The atomic electrons also play a very significant role, and it must not be forgotten that it is equally difficult to increase the electron density at any point within the lattice, without expending a great deal of energy. Let me suggest that anyone who believes that it is easy to alter the electron density in the domain of inner electron orbits should start by establishing that as an experimental fact. Perhaps you could demonstrate a significant shift in characteristic X-ray energies, for example. What so frequently is overlooked in this type of thinking is the fundamental fact that it is the electron density at nuclear dimensions that must be considered. Unless there is a very great alteration of the density at very small atomic radii, there can be no effect on the fusion rate. I invite anyone to make a crude estimate of just what is required, but I don't think 10% changes are sufficient to even be interesting. It takes something very dramatic, and that should be observable by other means than cold fusion. No matter how hard he wishes it were so, Ed Stroms is not going to get two deuterons to move into close proximity by any chemical means he can devise -- unless, of course, he is going to totally revise chemistry as well as nuclear physics. As I said, it's a very slippery slope down to a realm of utter absurdity, where things like massive nuclear transmutations are imagined. Dick Blue From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 26 17:43:09 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA20278; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 17:41:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 17:41:24 -0700 Message-ID: <006601bde9af$558881c0$ba98a8cf hh2152186.www.surfsouth.com> From: "Bill Wallace" To: Subject: Re: Whirlpower Theory Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 20:39:47 -0400 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: <"S_sfd.0.hy4.pcO3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22744 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >You're reading into my statements more than what's there. I'll try to >clarify... I have a bad habit of that, thank you for clarifying. >While he never "published" in the sense of producing widely publically >available material on his theories on this specific topic, he is very >published in other areas of physics. In fact, he and his achievements can >be found in history and science textbooks! So all we have to find now is a famous scientist from the past, well published in other theories, dabbling in the vortex theory, but not having much published data on this, you are giving more and more all the time, thanks. >I could say that I resent the implication that I am intentionally lying to >everyone by painting a false image of the man, but I have no resentment >toward you or anyone, so I won't say it. However, I will respond. No, I >don't know him personally and no, he's not me. OK, thanks. >Disclosing who the funders are will be primarily up to the funders >themselves. And as far as disclosing my identity, this is what I have >planned to do all along. I hope you do! Although I can't see how that would help anyone >and I CAN see how that could put myself, family and friends in a position >of potential danger since we really do have the answer to F/E and there's a >lot of people who would do literally ANYTHING to get their hands on what we >have. Without a few brave souls to take the burdens upon themselves nothing ever gets changed does it? >The vortex as an possible "energy conduit" is nothing new, so that "door" >has been known already. Maybe a few like you are just now coming around to >realizing that possibility. If so, that's OK too. Something that I have not seen many alternative theories of the past focus a lot of attention on, so in that respect it does seem to be new. There can be a whole stage of actors, the spotlighted one usually gets the attention. >Design all you like, but without a solid conceptual foundation to start >from, it's just another lottery game. And someone usually wins it every week. You just need enough players. >Zero? Let's see... HMMMMM. Now, let me analyze this a moment....We have >the answer to F/E....and you don't If I did and I honestly believed it could be helping people I would open up the theories to critical review. You claim you will do this, only time will tell. >....and we won't tell you any details. But you have given several already, thanks. > HMMMMM. OH! I understand now! You resent me and are now calling me >names. Is that right? No Zero, I am not calling you names, I am trying to determine your personality type and mentality. The more you communicate with me the better and clearer that picture becomes. Not just anyone can change the world, it takes a unique type of person Zero. With certain inferences and questions I can get a clear picture of the type of person you are and what you are capable of. Defense reactions and mechanisms clarify for me. Well, I understand your resentment and I TRULY wish >there was some other way. If you think I have resentment then you do not know me that well, always open minded - not to the point my critical abilities no longer have use. I would like critical review of what you think you have, until more is revealed we are all left in the dark, the inventor and those that wish to test his theories, it takes the positive and the negative to give us a balance of objectivity. But WE made the discovery so WE have the right >to at least establish some kind of lead on the inevitable competition. If you have what you claim, you may establish the lead, but that does not guarantee you will beat others to the profits thus entailed, did Tesla die a rich man? Success can be defined in many ways, credit for invention is but one. I wish you luck in your quest. Sometimes someone can believe in something so much they are not willing to listen to any negative comments, they close themselves off from reality. They do not even make thier knowledge known for fear of it being destroyed or corrected and thier dogmatic ideals crushed. They may not even be aware they are consciously doing this, the mind is an amazing system with suprising defense mechanisms. Proof abounds both in mainstream science and alternative. If >you say there's something wrong with that then you must also disagree with >the whole concept of the patenting process, keeping trade secrets, etc. Actually now that you mention it I do have a problem with the patent process, everything has its place and time, and very few things are absolute. Still the need for competition and being the first seems to still be a great motivator for invention, as long as it is needed you know. >Also, who's hanging out with "zeros"? All my responses are sent to all >list members for everyone's benefit. Are you saying that all list members >are "zeros"? (though a few probably are) Everything has its purpose. Even zero. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 26 18:11:38 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA28922; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 18:08:55 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 18:08:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00f601bde9b1$e3e8a600$ba98a8cf hh2152186.www.surfsouth.com> From: "Bill Wallace" To: Subject: Re: tornadoes Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 20:57:58 -0400 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: <"NtxRV1.0.n37.b0P3s" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22745 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >it to spiral into a vortex tube, power is multiplied as it moves into and >down the vortex. The whirlpool is actually forcing the vortex to form. > The area of torque is greater in the whirlpool and all this torque is >being passed into and through the vortex causing great power in the lower >half of the vortex Could this vortex be forced to loop back into itself, say the bottom part turned in a curve going back into the top, like a circle? From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 26 18:46:15 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA01622; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 18:41:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 18:41:48 -0700 Message-ID: <018f01bde9b7$c7ec96e0$ba98a8cf hh2152186.www.surfsouth.com> From: "Bill Wallace" To: Subject: Re: Whirlpower Theory Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 21:40:12 -0400 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: <"kw1_q3.0.EP.RVP3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22746 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Fear has absolutely nothing to do with why I have my secrets. Here's a little advise you may listen to (I hope)... > And I have some for you to my friend: >Proverbs 12:23 A prudent man concealeth knowledge: but the heart of fools >proclaimeth foolishness. Proverbs 13:7 There is that maketh himself rich, yet hath nothing: there is that maketh himself poor, yet hath great riches Zero forget the money, ANY of it, help the poor! > >Proverbs 14:15 The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going. Proverbs 14:7 Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge. IE I am skeptical of you. >Proverbs 22:3 A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth (prepares)himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished. Proverbs 22:9 He that hath a bountiful eye shall be blessed; for he giveth of his bread to the poor. I beseech thee, I do not want your knowledge for personal gain, or to have power, but to empower those less fortunate in life by changing political and economic structure. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 26 20:46:44 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA03604; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 20:43:57 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 20:43:57 -0700 Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 20:44:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809270344.UAA17207 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Whirlpower Theory Resent-Message-ID: <"CbMDW1.0.Eu.zHR3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22747 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Bill says; > I beseech thee, I do not want your knowledge for personal gain, or to have > power, but to empower those less fortunate in life by changing political and > economic structure. I think it interesting how ZPE is holding his cards and getting all the attention here. I have my cards wide open on the table and ask the simplest of questions without reply. Being the weekend many are probably not here and answers to my questions and may till next week. I invite people to answer in the negative and say they too have not seen any data of a top being spun on a turntable. ZPE please do not be offended by my remarks. I think you are brave to go into this area to start with. Maybe I am a fool but somebody has to break down this door and I have the heart and inspiration to do it. Brief summary: A dream, a giant whirlpool, announcement, no data, never been done thay say. Research, all vortex, no giant whirlpool, shout Eureka from highest rooftop. Announcements on several lists, no disproof, more and more start to see. Theory develops. The Holy Grail. The Pearl of Wisdom. One year later, vortex list, argument and agreement, still no data on giant whirlpool, no data on Tip Top. Missing puzzel pieces, all blue sky, negative shapes found. Network TV says all vortex science was wrong, Big Bang is wrong, hurricane is the most mysterious event. Whirlpower presented as alternative answer by dreamer. Dreamer claims victory. Drum Roll............................... The answer is truely blowing in the wind. You be the judge. I await your answer, I will not accept your dogma. David Dennard From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 26 21:47:27 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA14769; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 21:40:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 21:40:00 -0700 X-AirNote: 1 X-AIGTO: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-ID: <01BDE9A7.34EB7BA0.zpe pdq.net> From: ZPE To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Whirlpower Theory Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 23:40:06 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 Encoding: 130 TEXT Resent-Message-ID: <"QJPUg2.0.cc3.V6S3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22748 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Bill, To some degree, I've suspected all along the possibility that you could be just trying to get me to show you and everyone else what I'm made of, and that's why you say some of the things you say. You know that if you make certain implications about my character and motives and ask certain leading questions and I don't respond, list members will assume your implications to be true and lose hope in the possibility of my claims being true. Knowing this is why I am compelled to respond to your implications and questions (in spite of the fact that I really don't have the time as I am already working 16 hours days trying to keep up with everything that is happening). Now that we have made some good solid contacts for funding, I could just forget about everyone else. But I can't. You see, I care about what's on people's minds regarding my claims and I know they are hoping that what I have is real and are looking for any evidence that supports that hope. It's 10:30 PM and I'm really tired but here goes... On Saturday, September 26, 1998 8:40 PM, Bill Wallace [SMTP:btech surfsouth.com] wrote: | Proverbs 13:7 | There is that maketh himself rich, yet hath nothing: there is that maketh | himself poor, yet hath great riches | Proverbs 22:9 | He that hath a bountiful eye shall be blessed; for he giveth of his bread to | the poor. | | Zero forget the money, ANY of it, help the poor! Exactly! But to help the poor...TRULY help the poor, what are the chances that we can approach the men who currently have the riches, ask them to give their riches to helping the poor, and they then say to us, "Well, if you put it that way, I'll gladly throw away all my selfish plans and do as you say." Try asking Bill Gates to put his billions to good use by giving it away to help the poor. No, the only way to REALLY help the poor is for those of us who genuinely have given their lives to the cause of helping the poor to give OUR riches away, ALL OF IT! But what is a man to do who has a heart that big but no riches to give away?! Your statement of "forget the money...help the poor!" is a contradiction of terms. To really help the poor, it's going to take money... REAL MONEY! And unless it is our OWN riches that we give away, the poor will continue in their misery, because for the most part, those with the riches today are interested only in themselves and their own petty empires they think they have built. (They make me sick.) It's corruption like that that has caused most of society's problems. And if we release this kind of knowlege into a world of this kind of corruption without at least trying to insure that some of the riches it produces gets used for the RIGHT reasons, the poor will keep right on being poor because the rich will just find some way to take control of this technology to continue building their self-centered kingdoms leaving most people in their current misery. If it sounds like I have no faith in man kind's ability to take care of it's weak, it's because I don't. I know, I know... you've said that if this technology was in the hands of the common people, that they could use it to lift themselves out of their misery (or something to that effect). Unfortunately, it's not that simple. The technology will require some serious engineering effort to make it affordable enough to replace the world's current energy supplies. Only a concerted effort by a team of professionals guided by the right motives is going to make it happen. People trying to build it themselves in their garages will not work. On the other hand, if we just give away our secrets now and completely entrust the technology to the existing corporate world to make it happen, the only thing that will happen is existing empires will grow bigger and stronger and be more successful is controlling the lives of the masses. Ultimately, our F/E secrets and the F/E secrets of possibly others will be known by all the world, but if those of us who have the pure motives don't take the advantage that has been given to us first, our opportunity to make a real difference will be gone, as we watch the corrupt power hungry slime of this planet use it for selfish gain leaving the poor of the world in their misery. Whether you or anyone else believes this next statement or not, I don't know, but I'll say it anyway. Maybe you'll understand. No one really "owns" anything. The only difference between a "rich" man and a "poor" man is one man has been given the privilege of making the decisions on how those "riches" are to be used, and the other one has not. If he makes the wrong decisions too many times, the REAL owner of those riches will take his privileges away and give them to another as He sees fit. Does Bill Gates really own those billions that his name is attached to? Absolutely not. He is nothing more than a steward over those riches and he could lose it all tomorrow. I say this to say that I know without a shadow of a doubt that I own nothing, you own nothing, we all own nothing, not even ourselves. So what does that leave? That leaves everything under the ownership of the One who created the wealth of the world in the first place. Our purpose in life and self-value does not come from how much stuff or money we can accumulate. Wealth is nothing more than a tool. In the hands of a righteous man, it's a tool of righteousness and creativity. In the hand of an evil man, it's a tool of corruption and destruction. I don't know about you but I want to see as much wealth as possible be given to the few righteous men in this world and the only way I am going to see that is if I can be one of the ones giving it to them. THAT is what drives me to be one of the first to develop and market this technology. I know what my motives are therefore I know that I will do the right thing with the wealth that could fall into my hands as a result of the things that are happening. If we just give away this knowlege and trust everyone else to do what's right with that knowlege, I firmly believe that we would be sorely disappointed. The bottom line is this. The One who owns everything will delegate His wealth (as a tool) to whomever He choses. If He choses us then who are you or anyone else to say that's not right? | | Proverbs 14:7 | Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the | lips of knowledge. | | IE I am skeptical of you. | And you should be skeptical of all men who are in a position such as I am in. Only the fruits of time can justify otherwise. | | I beseech thee, I do not want your knowledge for personal gain, or to have | power, but to empower those less fortunate in life by changing political and | economic structure. That's very good to hear. Maybe some day we will meet, even come to know each other, even to the point where what you say can been verified. Who knows what could happen then. ZPE From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 26 22:29:09 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA26108; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 22:24:08 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 22:24:08 -0700 Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 22:24:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809270524.WAA26037 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Whirlpower Theory Resent-Message-ID: <"yl8sg2.0.sN6.tlS3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22749 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ZPE says, I know, I > know... you've said that if this technology was in the hands of the common > people, that they could use it to lift themselves out of their misery (or > something to that effect). Unfortunately, it's not that simple. The > technology will require some serious engineering effort to make it > affordable enough to replace the world's current energy supplies. Not if Whirlpower works. It is so simple the most intelligent have a hard time seeing it. That is how I got this far. Science is looking for some high tech expensive gizmo to be the answer, when it is as simple as plain old every day whirlpool. Not to mention the toy top. Was is not Galileo that made the first telescope with toy lenses made in France for many years for the amusment of children. Did not the establishment scorn him? It is because my theory is so simple I have been able to rally those who have ears to hear and help me get this far, while those with their noses in the air scoff and laugh. Only a > concerted effort by a team of professionals guided by the right motives is > going to make it happen. People trying to build it themselves in their > garages will not work. I would not bet on it. Anyone will be able to have their own Whirlpower devise as simpley as putting in a fountain, Hero's Fountain. And a small Tip Top devise will put out electricity on a small scale very cheaply. On the other hand, if we just give away our secrets > now and completely entrust the technology to the existing corporate world > to make it happen, the only thing that will happen is existing empires will > grow bigger and stronger and be more successful is controlling the lives of > the masses. That is the beauty of Whirlpower. Is is so low tech anyone will have the Power. And the big companies can use it too. It is here available to all. As I have stated in Whirlpower Declaration it is free and any who wish may remember me if they want to, and all such donations will be put into an organization i will set up exclusively to discover and explore the mysteries of space and mind. And all such information will be available to all. > > Ultimately, our F/E secrets and the F/E secrets of possibly others will be > known by all the world, but if those of us who have the pure motives don't > take the advantage that has been given to us first, our opportunity to make > a real difference will be gone, as we watch the corrupt power hungry slime > of this planet use it for selfish gain leaving the poor of the world in > their misery. Not going to happen with Whirlpower. > > Whether you or anyone else believes this next statement or not, I don't > know, but I'll say it anyway. Maybe you'll understand. No one really > "owns" anything. The only difference between a "rich" man and a "poor" man > is one man has been given the privilege of making the decisions on how > those "riches" are to be used, and the other one has not. If he makes the > wrong decisions too many times, the REAL owner of those riches will take > his privileges away and give them to another as He sees fit. Does Bill > Gates really own those billions that his name is attached to? Absolutely > not. He is nothing more than a steward over those riches and he could lose > it all tomorrow. > > I say this to say that I know without a shadow of a doubt that I own > nothing, you own nothing, we all own nothing, not even ourselves. So what > does that leave? That leaves everything under the ownership of the One who > created the wealth of the world in the first place. Our purpose in life > and self-value does not come from how much stuff or money we can > accumulate. Wealth is nothing more than a tool. In the hands of a > righteous man, it's a tool of righteousness and creativity. In the hand of > an evil man, it's a tool of corruption and destruction. I don't know about > you but I want to see as much wealth as possible be given to the few > righteous men in this world and the only way I am going to see that is if I > can be one of the ones giving it to them. THAT is what drives me to be one > of the first to develop and market this technology. I know what my motives > are therefore I know that I will do the right thing with the wealth that > could fall into my hands as a result of the things that are happening. If > we just give away this knowlege and trust everyone else to do what's right > with that knowlege, I firmly believe that we would be sorely disappointed. Your technology maybe, but not Whirlpower. You are making something so high tech the poor will not be able to use it and the rich will abuse it. That is why I am here. Whirlpower is already under construction and a test of principle model has been confirmed. It is only a matter of time now. Even if I get killed it will not be stopped. Hundreds on other lists are getting getting my news reports and thousands know about this. David Dennard From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 27 01:07:56 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA24191; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 01:03:44 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 01:03:44 -0700 Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 02:05:35 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: tornadoes In-Reply-To: <00f601bde9b1$e3e8a600$ba98a8cf hh2152186.www.surfsouth.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"MNCVk3.0.vv5.W5V3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22750 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sat, 26 Sep 1998, Bill Wallace wrote: >it to spiral into a vortex tube, power is multiplied as it moves into and >down the vortex. The whirlpool is actually forcing the vortex to form. > The area of torque is greater in the whirlpool and all this torque is >being passed into and through the vortex causing great power in the lower >half of the vortex Could this vortex be forced to loop back into itself, say the bottom part turned in a curve going back into the top, like a circle? ------------------------ Hi Bill, That is what the WhirlPOWER claim is all about, see: http://www.ledomedesprit.com/domeworld/whirlpower.html Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22751 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 12:21:34 -0500, guest wrote: [snip] >It was my understanding that we WOULD weigh less at night for the same reasons that high tide exists simultaneously on opposite sides of the earth. Since from a mathematical perspective the earth's center of gravity is what the sun is really "pulling" o n, the side of the earth that is farthest from the sun would experience more orbital centrifugal force than the sun's gravity and the side of the earth that is closest to the sun would experience more of the sun's gravity and less orbital centrifugal forc e. The point of earth's center of gravity would experience both the sun's gravity and orbital centrifugal force in equal amounts that net to zero. > >Allen Nelson [snip] Taking the effects into account that you mention, I find that one actually weighs less during the day (if I did the math correctly). Difference in absolute value of acceleration between day and night is: G*M*{[1/(R-r)^2]+[1/(R+r)^2]-2/R^2} Regards, Robin van Spaandonk From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 27 04:19:13 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA16610; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 04:15:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 04:15:13 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199809270344.UAA17207 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 01:13:55 -1000 To: Vortex-L From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Whirlpower Theory Resent-Message-ID: <"dI_dD2.0.K34._uX3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22752 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: David - Um, I seem to have lost track - what exactly is it that you want from people on this list? Do you just want to feel better by having people agree with your personal theories? Why not "cut metal" and build an actual demonstrator using something besides website pixels? Then if it's really overunity, you can feel good all the way to the bank, and have your theories honored worldwide. But nobody will give your *theories alone* much attention, let alone any funding. And frankly, that's exactly how it should be. > I think it interesting how ZPE is holding his > cards and getting all the attention here. I wouldn't be jealous of the attention ZPE's getting. A pig might be happy wallowing in shit, but is that really what you want? ZPE simply irritates people by making incredibly pretentious announcements and then witholding the details, and anger does tend to momentarily kick things up a notch on a list. Vaporware devices and theories which make sense only to their originators just make people feel detached and kind of sad. It's such a low percentage bet. I like Powerball odds better. > Whirlpower presented as alternative > answer by dreamer. > > Dreamer claims victory. > > Drum Roll............................... > > The answer is truely blowing in the wind. > > You be the judge. > > I await your answer, I will not accept your > dogma. Regarding the quotes above, I honestly don't mean to be mean, but Good Grief. Get some perspective, ok? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 27 06:20:14 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA05903; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 06:14:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 06:14:47 -0700 Message-ID: <018701bdea18$db145760$898f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Cc: "George" Subject: Re; Vacuum Energy Extraction Property (VEEP) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 07:14:28 -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: <"ckrrS1.0.oR1.6fZ3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22753 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To; Vortex If one looks at the measured energy of the Mesons Em,it is apparent that the mass/energy of each fits the relationship: Em = n*Ee/Alpha where Alpha is the "Fine Structure Constant" 0.00729729, and Ee is the rest energy of the Electron, 0.511 Mev. Thus for the Pion (137 Mev) n = 2 and for the N meson n = 8 and so on. If Nature creates an N meson pair from a photon of 2*560 Mev (1.12 Gev) two plus and one minus go into forming the proton "Triad" and the odd-man-out negative meson decays to become the external electron, with the difference between the 560 and 312 Mev "quark" energy in the proton going into the binding energy etc. Thus in an interaction or "collision" between an electron and a proton the quarks can donate energy dE = hbar/dt and the Vacuum Property in maintaining n*Ee/Alpha will restore the energy lost as the "free energy" dE = hbar/dt. In some circles they call this "free energy" ZPE. :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 27 10:45:01 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA09624; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 10:44:01 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 10:44:01 -0700 Message-ID: <006701bdea3e$31cf8f00$ba98a8cf hh2152186.www.surfsouth.com> From: "Bill Wallace" To: "David Dennard" , Subject: Re: Whirlpower Theory Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 12:15:02 -0400 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: <"D55_B2.0.DM2.Wbd3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22754 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >I think it interesting how ZPE is holding his cards and getting all the >attention here. Some people need attention David, for whatever reason. >I have my cards wide open on the table and ask the simplest of questions without >reply. Some of your questions are beyond my areas of expertise, to reply would add nothing from me. I do not have the time right now to test your claims. Hopefully others do. >till next week. I invite people to answer in the negative and say they too have >not seen any data of a top being spun on a turntable. I have not either, exactly what happens, how many times have you repeated the experiment? >ZPE please do not be offended by my remarks. I think you are brave to go into >this area to start with. Maybe I am a fool but somebody has to break down this >door and I have the heart and inspiration to do it. I agree. >Network TV says all vortex science was wrong, Big Bang is wrong, hurricane is >the most mysterious event. After watching many hours of network TV, they do not have my trust. >Dreamer claims victory. Must have working device, how much do you think it will take? >Drum Roll............................... > >The answer is truely blowing in the wind. HA, that is a good one! True. >I await your answer, I will not accept your dogma. Good. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 27 10:50:24 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA09661; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 10:44:06 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 10:44:06 -0700 Message-ID: <006901bdea3e$355867a0$ba98a8cf hh2152186.www.surfsouth.com> From: "Bill Wallace" To: Subject: Re: Whirlpower Theory Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 13:38:21 -0400 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: <"umP6N3.0.tM2.bbd3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22755 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >To some degree, I've suspected all along the possibility that you could be >just trying to get me to show you and everyone else what I'm made of, and >that's why you say some of the things you say. I have what I needed, I have nothing to hide, that is why I tell you. You know that if you make >certain implications about my character and motives and ask certain leading >questions and I don't respond, list members will assume your implications >to be true and lose hope in the possibility of my claims being true. Honestly I could care less what other list members think of you, time will tell. >could just forget about everyone else. But I can't. You see, I care about >what's on people's minds regarding my claims and I know they are hoping >that what I have is real and are looking for any evidence that supports >that hope. Have you considered perhaps some are not? >Exactly! But to help the poor...TRULY help the poor, what are the chances >that we can approach the men who currently have the riches, That is what I see as a flaw to your approach, those that have the money, have gotten it through the current system, the way to upset that balance is to disrupt that current system - to threaten it. If I had a large utility I would not want to see your invention. I would want things to continue as they have, with me having all the power and cash. How many inventors are truly the ones that make the fortunes or build the empires based on thier visions? All they can take credit for is the invention itself, a working model. The markets will then decide who profits from it. ask them to >give their riches to helping the poor, and they then say to us, "Well, if >you put it that way, I'll gladly throw away all my selfish plans and do as >you say." Can't you see how right you are? What is the incentive for the already rich and wealthy to give you money to help you? If you had a limited product or special access to resources, but all you are holding back is knowledge, nothing else. Do you honestly believe you will be able to control the markets once that knowledge is public? Try asking Bill Gates to put his billions to good use by giving >it away to help the poor. No, the only way to REALLY help the poor is for >those of us who genuinely have given their lives to the cause of helping >the poor to give OUR riches away, ALL OF IT! But what is a man to do who >has a heart that big but no riches to give away?! Yet you claim you have something to give, but wish to involve people far more intelligent than you in matters you have no experience or interest in. Do what you do, and let others do what they do, try to be a jack of all trades and you will be a master of none. Your statement of >"forget the money...help the poor!" is a contradiction of terms. To really >help the poor, it's going to take money... REAL MONEY! Threatening that money will do far more than telling that money how to make more money. You have 10 million, I will tell you how to make 20 or I will take away your 10, what motivates you more? People see working technologies that threaten their current wealth, either they jump on the bandwagon or someone else will. How do you think you can control that? History proves you can't. And unless it is >our OWN riches that we give away, the poor will continue in their misery, >because for the most part, those with the riches today are interested only >in themselves and their own petty empires they think they have built. > (They make me sick.) It's corruption like that that has caused most of >society's problems. Everything has its place, greed has been good for a lot of things in this world, but the gap between the haves and have nots is growing too great again, it is time for a rebalancing. You claim to have something that may do this. >And if we release this kind of knowlege into a world of this kind of >corruption without at least trying to insure that some of the riches it >produces gets used for the RIGHT reasons, You will never be able to dictate how the wealth gets used, only the wealthy will. You do not seem to want to be one of the wealthy and what that entails. That is their design, all you can hope to do is upset the balance and possibly in the shifting of power and wealth to the new torchholders that more benefit than not. the poor will keep right on being >poor For a long time now there will always be poor and wealthy. And who they are changes all the time. because the rich will just find some way to take control of this >technology to continue building their self-centered kingdoms leaving most >people in their current misery. I assure you ultimately the rich will control whatever is most profitable in the world, it is the method of thier design. All you can hope to do with your knowledge is close the gap a little, not reverse the tables. If it sounds like I have no faith in man >kind's ability to take care of it's weak, it's because I don't. I know, I >know... you've said that if this technology was in the hands of the common >people, that they could use it to lift themselves out of their misery To a point it could help. (or >something to that effect). Unfortunately, it's not that simple. The >technology will require some serious engineering effort to make it >affordable enough to replace the world's current energy supplies. Whatever happens though, the rich will ultimately control it, I assure you, the most you can hope for is the general standard to be raised some, but that is a very good thing. Why would a currently wealthy person be motivated to help you? I would be more motivated if I saw something that was going to hurt me, not help others. A working model too, not a theory. Only a >concerted effort by a team of professionals guided by the right motives is >going to make it happen. Most professionals motives today involve things that are not important to you. People trying to build it themselves in their >garages will not work. You could be amazed what people in their garages could do. Whole world changing industries have come from that, and the ones with wealth may have changed, but you still had the wealthy and the poor. On the other hand, if we just give away our secrets >now and completely entrust the technology to the existing corporate world >to make it happen, the only thing that will happen is existing empires will >grow bigger and stronger and be more successful is controlling the lives of >the masses. Existing empires will change, new empires will rise, old ones will fall, but there is going to be a wealthy and a poor class for a long time to come Zero. Lets say you bring this technology to the masses, you are the one controlling the release and have all the data, you will then become one of the wealthy, if you choose that path your future is almost assuredly set in stone. >Ultimately, our F/E secrets and the F/E secrets of possibly others will be >known by all the world, but if those of us who have the pure motives don't >take the advantage that has been given to us first, our opportunity to make >a real difference will be gone, as we watch the corrupt power hungry slime >of this planet use it for selfish gain leaving the poor of the world in >their misery. You can help the poor by releasing knowledge that may makes things a little cheaper and easier for them collectively, thereby slightly raising their standard of living. The poor today can be said to live better than the kings of just a few hundred years ago, but if you believe that you can bring a world about where we are all truly equal I do not see that happening for a very very long time. There are always going to be wealthy and poor people Zero, you claim you have something that could help a lot of folks, a wealthy man is not interested unless it threatens him, do you want to be wealthy so that you fall into that same trap? >Whether you or anyone else believes this next statement or not, I don't >know, but I'll say it anyway. Maybe you'll understand. No one really >"owns" anything. I understand and agree completely. The only difference between a "rich" man and a "poor" man >is one man has been given the privilege of making the decisions on how >those "riches" are to be used, and the other one has not. If he makes the >wrong decisions too many times, the REAL owner of those riches will take >his privileges away and give them to another as He sees fit. Does Bill >Gates really own those billions that his name is attached to? Absolutely >not. He is nothing more than a steward over those riches and he could lose >it all tomorrow. Very true, but when he loses those riches, and they get redistributed, it is almost certain that the majority of them will go to another, making that one wealthy. It is just the way things work. All I see holding knowledge back as doing is hurting us all, there are always going to be rich and poor people, but we can all be helped by new ways of doing things. It is time for a change and you claim you can do that, well do it Zero, let the wealthy do what they are good at and don't get involved in that game. >I say this to say that I know without a shadow of a doubt that I own >nothing, you own nothing, we all own nothing, not even ourselves. So what >does that leave? That leaves everything under the ownership of the One who >created the wealth of the world in the first place. Our purpose in life >and self-value does not come from how much stuff or money we can >accumulate. For some it does, and for some of those that drive has helped many. For others it has not. Wealth is nothing more than a tool. In the hands of a >righteous man, it's a tool of righteousness and creativity. I am sorry, from what I have observed in my universe the point you become wealthy you then have a new baby to protect - your wealth - and very few can give it up once having it. You no longer have the drive or inventive spirit you once had and it takes others to progress civilization at that point. And once they too become wealthy it then takes others, etc etc In the hand of >an evil man, it's a tool of corruption and destruction. I don't know about >you but I want to see as much wealth as possible be given to the few >righteous men in this world I disagree 100%, I do not want to see those righteous men turn corrupt or even to lose what they once had by being poor and not wealthy. and the only way I am going to see that is if I >can be one of the ones giving it to them. THAT is what drives me to be one >of the first to develop and market this technology. I know what my motives >are therefore I know that I will do the right thing with the wealth that >could fall into my hands as a result of the things that are happening. Zero do what you must, but look into history and what man has always done before you think you are the one that is different. You like to use bill gates a lot, I honestly believe he was a technology freak as a young one, he loved progress and working with the cutting edge, but it took netscape to revolutionize the web, and bill gates turned his company on a dime to meet that threat, very admirable, but if we had depended on bill to bring that level today we might still be waiting. Netscape lost control I believe, and time will tell, but that way of doing things I believe has helped us all, no matter who controls it. If >we just give away this knowlege and trust everyone else to do what's right >with that knowlege, I firmly believe that we would be sorely disappointed. I suppose we will never know. Until you have a working model that is a threat to someone elses wealth, nothing will ever really be done, I assure you. >The bottom line is this. The One who owns everything will delegate His >wealth (as a tool) to whomever He choses. If He choses us then who are you >or anyone else to say that's not right? > >| >| Proverbs 14:7 >| Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him >the >| lips of knowledge. >| >| IE I am skeptical of you. >| >And you should be skeptical of all men who are in a position such as I am >in. Only the fruits of time can justify otherwise. I agree, time will tell. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 27 12:16:05 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA01141; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 12:11:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 12:11:20 -0700 Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 15:09:17 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: [OFF TOPIC] "Car Talk" quote Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809271512_MC2-5ACD-4975 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"PA_Se1.0.lH.Ote3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22756 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex This was reportedly heard on the "Car Talk" radio program from Click and Clack: A philisophical question: A man is alone in the woods. He speaks. No woman is there to hear him. Is he still wrong? - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 27 13:45:04 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA27032; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 13:42:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 13:42:22 -0700 Message-ID: <360EB045.71F6A117 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 23:38:13 +0200 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Art Bell: Greer has hot OU device References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"P7EW91.0.Ic6.jCg3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22757 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Friday 25th September, 1998 (Real Audio) NEW Dr. Greer - Free Energy Discussion - scroll forward to 01:11:00 Art Bell Go to http://ww2.broadcast.com/artbell/abell/9809/ab0925.ram Real Player is required Skip to 01:11 - 01:17 to start of Dr Geer program. My notes: - The device (prototype) exist and observed working by Geer, no blackbox tricks. - Not CF, no chemical, said ZPE - No reproducibility problem - Desktop device producing energy for domestic use - Battery required for only start-up - Everythink will be disclosed quickly (wihtin weeks) Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 27 13:56:31 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA32695; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 13:55:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 13:55:07 -0700 Message-ID: <360EC470.682D fc.net> Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 16:04:16 -0700 From: John Fields Organization: Austin Instruments, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; U; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com CC: jfields fc.net Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] "Car Talk" quote References: <199809271512_MC2-5ACD-4975 compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Veqf13.0.h-7.gOg3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22758 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > > To: Vortex > > This was reportedly heard on the "Car Talk" radio program from Click and Clack: > > A philisophical question: A man is alone in the woods. He speaks. No woman > is there to hear him. Is he still wrong? > > - Jed -- Not if he moves out of the way of the falling tree!-) -- John From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 27 14:33:50 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA08073; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 14:28:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 14:28:03 -0700 Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 14:28:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809272128.OAA02229 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "Jeannette Clark" Reply-To: "Jeannette Clark" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Whirlpower Theory Resent-Message-ID: <"zevDo.0.2-1.Ytg3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22759 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Rick, thank your for your reply, > Um, I seem to have lost track - what exactly is it that you want from > people on this list? Mostly, answers to my questions. First and foremost, has anyone ever spun a top on a turntable? Is there any data? Has anyone ever built a giant whirlpool? And, I am using lists to inform people about my theory and discuss the possibility. This provides a dated chronicle of disclosure and puts the information in as many people hands as possible. This provides the most possibility of bringing this type of information into the world and lets me know if there is prior art or if someone can disprove my theory. Mostly it provides protection for the idea and myself. If I went to a lawyer or anyone with proof it might be surpressed. Do you just want to feel better by having people agree > with your personal theories? Not just, but it does help and leads to the possibility. Why not "cut metal" and build an actual > demonstrator using something besides website pixels? Personally I am poor and disabeled. I am generating interest and a pattern, kind of like the concept of the "Hundreth Monkey". Once enough people grasp it it catches on. Then if it's really > overunity, you can feel good all the way to the bank, I am not doing this for personal gain. I think that would be foolish. This is so simple anyone could rip me off that wanted to once proven. and have your > theories honored worldwide. That is the plan But nobody will give your *theories alone* much > attention, let alone any funding Not true I get a lot of attention and many have agreed from all over the world. True, funding is much harder to come by. And actually I don't expect this to happen by funding. Someone reading this will build it one day, some say they are already in the process. . And frankly, that's exactly how it should > be. Frankly, I disagree. People should be able to use their talents of thought and propose theories. That's what Einstein did and look what happened. He did not build anything. He wrote a theory and sent it off in the mail. Somebody read it and saw the importance. The rest is history. David Dennard Sincerely yours, Jeannette Clark 655 Doyle Lane Dixon, CA 95620 (916) 678-0402 Email address:jclark dcn.davis.ca.us WWW Catalog http://www.larkinam.com/quilt.Html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 27 14:51:11 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA14960; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 14:50:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 14:50:10 -0700 Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 14:50:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809272150.OAA11073 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "Jeannette Clark" Reply-To: "Jeannette Clark" To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: Whirlpower Theory Resent-Message-ID: <"1DJPQ.0.ef3.HCh3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22760 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Bill Wallace, I appreciate your positive comments. You seem to have the same take on information disclosure as I do and you see once the genie is out of the bottle, be it whatever form, no one will be able to totally control it. But the more high tech it is the more the rich will gain control. That is why I really hope Whirlpower works. If the rich get more control there will be a backlash by the poor and revolution one day. We see history speak this lesson time and time again. > > >till next week. I invite people to answer in the negative and say they too > have > >not seen any data of a top being spun on a turntable. > > I have not either, exactly what happens, how many times have you repeated > the experiment? Yea Bill, that does more than you will ever know. If I can show a pattern here it is all important. I have not proformed the experiment. No one has from all I can tell. That fact and the fact that a giant whirlpool has never been built are enormous exploration gaps. Things someone should have looked into. Common sense possibilities. I hope more will answer this question. Especially those who take the time to criticize me. Is there only purpose here to criticize? Are they not interested enough to answer a few simple questions? I may ask them, what do YOU expect from this list? Maybe I am a fool but somebody has to break down > this > >door and I have the heart and inspiration to do it. > > > I agree. Sure wish you had more time to help. You seem to have your head on right. > > >Network TV says all vortex science was wrong, Big Bang is wrong, hurricane > is > >the most mysterious event. > > After watching many hours of network TV, they do not have my trust. I don't either for the most part. But these science specials were really something. I am surprised nobody on this list has repored seeing them. It was the most important vortex news I have ever seen. Any one interested in the vortex should try to see then when they air again ar get a transcript. > > > >The answer is truely blowing in the wind. > > > HA, that is a good one! True. I think so. The solution to the mystery of the hurricane is the solution to the energy crisis! I think that solution is Whirlpower. To fly, look to the bird. For power, look to the hurricane. David Dennard Sincerely yours, Jeannette Clark 655 Doyle Lane Dixon, CA 95620 (916) 678-0402 Email address:jclark dcn.davis.ca.us WWW Catalog http://www.larkinam.com/quilt.Html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 27 15:00:29 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA16424; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 14:53:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 14:53:54 -0700 Message-ID: <19980927215451.24307.qmail hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [158.152.228.34] From: "Rob King" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: 120% efficient water fuel cell? Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 14:54:51 PDT Resent-Message-ID: <"kLw3a2.0.Y04.nFh3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22761 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi vorts, Can anyone tell me the patent number or link for the device that has an efficiency of 120%? It is a Meyer cell type setup with conical shaped plates. Cheers :) Rob King ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 27 15:14:09 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA26698; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 15:13:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 15:13:03 -0700 Message-Id: <199809272213.RAA18795 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 17:13:01 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: Whirlpower Theory Resent-Message-ID: <"X13va3.0.oW6.iXh3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22762 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 12:21:34 -0500, guest wrote: >[snip] >>It was my understanding that we WOULD weigh less at night for the same >>reasons that high tide exists simultaneously on opposite sides of the earth. >>Since from a mathematical perspective the earth's center of gravity is what >>the sun is really "pulling" on, the side of the earth that is farthest from >>the sun would experience more orbital centrifugal force than the sun's >>gravity and the side of the earth that is closest to the sun would experience >>more of the sun's gravity and less orbital centrifugal force. The point of >>earth's center of gravity would experience both the sun's gravity and orbital >>centrifugal force in equal amounts that net to zero. >> >>Allen Nelson >[snip] >Taking the effects into account that you mention, I find that one >actually weighs less during the day (if I did the math correctly). >Difference in absolute value of acceleration between day and night is: > >G*M*{[1/(R-r)^2]+[1/(R+r)^2]-2/R^2} > > >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk ***{Upon reflection, I have decided that my original conclusion that a person would weigh more at night was wrong. There is, in fact, no difference whatever. The reasons are as follows: (1) The "orbital centrifugal force" arises from the fact that a moving object will continue its motion in a straight line unless acted on by an external force. This means that an object orbiting about a central mass is, at any instant, tending to move down the tangent line from the orbit at that point. The centrifugal force is merely the force perpendicular to that tangent which is necessary to deflect the object from the tangent and hold it in its orbit. Since the orbital centrifugal force acting on the earth is merely the pull of gravity exerted by the sun on the earth, it acts on all the objects of which the earth is composed and, thus, deflects them all by the same amount. Result: it gives rise to no tendency to press objects on the earth together or pull them apart, and can be neglected in any calculations of how much a person on the earth would weigh when standing on an accurate scale. Thus it does not enter into any difference between the weight a person will have at night and the weight he will have during the day. (2) The centrifugal force exerted on a person standing at a given point on the earth, due to the rotation of the earth, can also be neglected. While it opposes the earth's pull, and influences the weight which a person will have when standing on an accurate scale, it does not vary depending on the time of day. Its force is greatest at the equator, and is zero at the poles, so it will subtract more from the weight of a person standing at the equator. Such a person will weigh slightly less than he would weigh at the either pole. However, since this force is the same 24 hours a day, it also has no influence on the difference between daytime and nighttime weight. Bottom line: there is no difference between daytime and nighttime weight due to either of these influences and, hence, there is no difference between daytime and nighttime weight. --Mitchell Jones}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 27 15:52:26 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA10221; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 15:50:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 15:50:54 -0700 Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 15:51:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809272251.PAA05495 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "Jeannette Clark" Reply-To: "Jeannette Clark" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: tornadoes Resent-Message-ID: <"LRQ9T2.0.dV2.D5i3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22763 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Robert, The tornado and the whirlpool have very similar properties but there a a few major differences too, and the hurricane is different. There is a thread that runs through all these misunderstood events. As I stated almost everything science thought about the vortex has been proven wrong just during the past year so I will try and bring you and the list up to date and explain how Whirlpower Theory fits into it all. > > As cold air meets warm air, a unique action happens. The two slide past > one another in a partial collision. This forces the air to swirl causing > the "donut" or whirlpool of air to form. As the whirlpool builds forcing > it to spiral into a vortex tube, power is multiplied as it moves into and > down the vortex. This is wrong. The vortex in the tornado is actually going up not down as in the whirlpool of water. The whirlpool is actually forcing the vortex to form. This is true. > The area of torque is greater in the whirlpool and all this torque is > being passed into and through the vortex causing great power in the lower > half of the vortex. This is wrong. It causes a higher speed but the mass is so diminished the power, i.e. mass and speed is less. It is much like a corkscrew, power is being generated > in the turning motion at the top of the screw and transferred through the > shaft to the wood. > In a whirlpool though, we have a multiplying factor as the air is forced > into a smaller swirling area called the vortex. Another interesting effect > using this thought is the whirlpool once formed would have a siphoning > effect once started. The vortex now forced to be formed would cause a > pressure differential to decrease in the vortex causing the whirlpool to > attract more power from cold and warm air meeting, making a larger tornado. This is true, you just have your direction wrong. > So actually the tornado is two distinct happenings. The whirlpool can form > without making a vortex, but the vortex needs a whirlpool to bring it into > exsistence. I cannot see were gravity has any contributions to these > happenings in a tornado. In the Pearl of Wisdom I show how gravity is the reason for evaporation. This same effect happens in the tornado. Gravity pulls the more dense atmosphere down. The best example here is the water spout, a tornado over water. Here gravity is pushing water up, even before it vaporizes, because the pressure is so high in the vortex. In many pictures some vortexes are from cloud to > cloud on a horizonal plane. All tornados start horizontally, then stand up, much like a top would do if you started it horizontally, enough speed and it would stand right up. Some have been seen to go straight up. All go straight up. I think > gravity has no control in the building of a tornado. Without gravity there would be no tornado. Hurricanes are nothing > more than large whirlpools without the vortex. Wrong. The eye wall is the vortex, and like the tornado it goes up. Air vortexes go up, water vortexes go down. Their area is much to large > to force a vortex to be formed of such magnitude, although they spawn > tornadoes wich is commonly known. Wrong and right. The most interesting to me using this > thought is the swirling galaxies. Ah, now we are getting somewhere. Here we have to bring gravity into the > picture or would we? Maybe the power of the whirlpool of galaxies overcomes > gravity at the beginning? Maybe when the whirlpool forces a vortex to form > then gravity takes control much like the pressure differential decreasing > in the vortex of a tornado causing a never ending desire for more matter. > Unfortunatly we could not see the vortex because it has passed the speed of > light, but we can see its effects on other surroundings. Man are your getting close. That is what frame dragging is all about. And you can see the vortex in a spiral galaxy. The spiral galaxy is a whirlpool and has all the properties of the compound vortex I describe in Whirlpower Theory. As does the hurricane. The tornado is a simple eddy vortex, but as it reaches class 5 it almost starts to become a hurricane. Remember air vortexes go up, water vortexes go down. Few understand this most simple basic vortex science and that is why this is a brand new ball game. It is also interesting that this all happened starting one year ago when I made my announcemant. More interesing I don't think it was because of my work, I don't think scientists have seen or recognized my work. They came to these conclusion quite seperately though decades of analysis, like Vera Rubin and others. I came to the same conclusions from dreams. I tamed the "beast". I caught the tornado in my hand. Maybe there is > temperture differentials in deep space starting whirlpools of matter. Not temp, black holes. > We know here on earth that warm and cold are in constant war with each > other. Who knows, maybe it happens in deep space. Each galaxy has a massive black hole in the center, and in some cases several. Much more to come, stay tuned, David Dennard Sincerely yours, Jeannette Clark 655 Doyle Lane Dixon, CA 95620 (916) 678-0402 Email address:jclark dcn.davis.ca.us WWW Catalog http://www.larkinam.com/quilt.Html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 27 15:55:59 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA11622; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 15:54:36 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 15:54:36 -0700 Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 15:55:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809272255.PAA07075 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Whirlpower Theory Resent-Message-ID: <"_SnJ6.0.Qr2.h8i3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22764 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Oops, sorry again, Jeannette got in here and changed the name when I wasn't watching again. I am going to have to figure this out somehow. David Dennard Sincerely yours, Jeannette Clark 655 Doyle Lane Dixon, CA 95620 (916) 678-0402 Email address:jclark dcn.davis.ca.us WWW Catalog http://www.larkinam.com/quilt.Html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 27 16:05:45 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA18409; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 16:04:44 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 16:04:44 -0700 Message-Id: <199809272305.SAA19095 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 18:04:43 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Need killfile for "Whirlpower" Resent-Message-ID: <"2syre2.0.FU4.AIi3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22765 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >David - > >Um, I seem to have lost track - what exactly is it that you want from >people on this list? Do you just want to feel better by having people agree >with your personal theories? Why not "cut metal" and build an actual >demonstrator using something besides website pixels? Then if it's really >overunity, you can feel good all the way to the bank, and have your >theories honored worldwide. But nobody will give your *theories alone* much >attention, let alone any funding. And frankly, that's exactly how it should >be. ***{Absolutely correct. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > > I think it interesting how ZPE is holding his > > cards and getting all the attention here. > >I wouldn't be jealous of the attention ZPE's getting. A pig might be happy >wallowing in shit, but is that really what you want? ZPE simply irritates >people by making incredibly pretentious announcements and then witholding >the details, and anger does tend to momentarily kick things up a notch on a >list. Vaporware devices and theories which make sense only to their >originators just make people feel detached and kind of sad. ***{Actually, I do not feel detached or sad. I feel irritated that my mailbox is filling up with vague pseudo-scientific garbage every day, and I find myself wondering how to auto delete this "whirlpower" stuff. Does anybody know of an e-mail reader with a killfile capability that works for the Macintosh? --Mitchell Jones}*** It's such a low >percentage bet. I like Powerball odds better. > > > Whirlpower presented as alternative > > answer by dreamer. > > > > Dreamer claims victory. > > > > Drum Roll............................... > > > > The answer is truely blowing in the wind. > > > > You be the judge. > > > > I await your answer, I will not accept your > > dogma. > >Regarding the quotes above, I honestly don't mean to be mean, but Good >Grief. Get some perspective, ok? ***{I don't intend to be mean either, but I think what Mr. Dennard needs is not perspective, but an education in basic science and the rules of reasoned discourse. When I asked him to clarify his vague speculations and specify the source of the claimed excess energy in the top-on-turntable situation, he ignored my request and demanded that I rehash the classic experiments upon which the generally accepted scientific analysis of gyroscopic devices is based. Since he doesn't even seem to comprehend that the burden of explanation and proof lies with the person making the claim, any discussion with him must necessarily proceed at such a basic level as to be mostly a waste of time, and this entire thread illustrates one thing only: that killfile capability is even more important to those who subscribe to a list than to persons who read usenet groups. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 27 16:31:20 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA25187; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 16:25:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 16:25:32 -0700 Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 16:26:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809272326.QAA19461 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Need killfile for "Whirlpower" Resent-Message-ID: <"YJxyZ1.0.R96.hbi3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22766 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Mitchell says, > > ***{Actually, I do not feel detached or sad. I feel irritated that my > mailbox is filling up with vague pseudo-scientific garbage every day, and I > find myself wondering how to auto delete this "whirlpower" stuff. Does > anybody know of an e-mail reader with a killfile capability that works for > the Macintosh? --Mitchell Jones}*** Mr. Jones, Please explain to me what this list is for if not for people to discuss vortex thought. Why does it upset you so? Deletion only takes one second, that would be less than one minute of your precious time so far if you don't want to read thoughts on the vortex. If fact, why are you on this list if you are not interested in reading thoughts on the vortex? > > ***{I don't intend to be mean either, but I think what Mr. Dennard needs is > not perspective, but an education in basic science and the rules of > reasoned discourse. When I asked him to clarify his vague speculations and > specify the source of the claimed excess energy in the top-on-turntable > situation, he ignored my request and demanded that I rehash the classic > experiments upon which the generally accepted scientific analysis of > gyroscopic devices is based. All I asked was show me one study or experiment of a top being spun on a turntable. I haven't found such infromation. Since he doesn't even seem to comprehend that > the burden of explanation and proof lies with the person making the claim, > any discussion with him must necessarily proceed at such a basic level as > to be mostly a waste of time, and this entire thread illustrates one thing > only: that killfile capability is even more important to those who > subscribe to a list than to persons who read usenet groups. --Mitchell > Jones}*** Again, I ask, what is the purpose of the list but to discuss vortex theory and invention? If you want to read stuff that is already proven go to the library. And I think your threats border on the criminal and to put it mildly, a slight touch of insanity. David Dennard From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 27 16:43:36 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA30214; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 16:42:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 16:42:33 -0700 Message-ID: <024101bdea70$46c9a9e0$ba98a8cf hh2152186.www.surfsouth.com> From: "Bill Wallace" To: "Jeannette Clark" , Subject: Re: tornadoes Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 19:40:37 -0400 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: <"ntOfR1.0.tN7.eri3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22767 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >This is wrong. The vortex in the tornado is actually going up not down as in >the whirlpool of water. I thought they formed horizontally, how can there be an up or down in this configuration? >In many pictures some vortexes are from cloud to >> cloud on a horizonal plane. > > >All tornados start horizontally, then stand up, much like a top would do if you >started it horizontally, enough speed and it would stand right up. So how does it move UP then if it forms horizontally, does the centrifugal force cause it to move in a direction against gravity? >Here we have to bring gravity into the >> picture or would we? Maybe the power of the whirlpool of galaxies overcomes >> gravity at the beginning? Maybe when the whirlpool forces a vortex to form >> then gravity takes control much like the pressure differential decreasing >> in the vortex of a tornado causing a never ending desire for more matter. >> Unfortunatly we could not see the vortex because it has passed the speed of >> light, but we can see its effects on other surroundings. > > >Man are your getting close. That is what frame dragging is all about. And you >can see the vortex in a spiral galaxy. The spiral galaxy is a whirlpool and has >all the properties of the compound vortex I describe in Whirlpower Theory. As >does the hurricane. The tornado is a simple eddy vortex, but as it reaches >class 5 it almost starts to become a hurricane. Remember air vortexes go up, >water vortexes go down. Could you please explain this more clearly, this is new area for me. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 27 17:00:32 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA01549; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 16:59:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 16:59:39 -0700 Message-ID: <026d01bdea72$ace37100$ba98a8cf hh2152186.www.surfsouth.com> From: "Bill Wallace" To: "David Dennard" , Subject: Re: Need killfile for "Whirlpower" Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 19:58:06 -0400 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: <"gRYSO1.0.2O.g5j3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22768 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Discovery channel tonight at 9 eastern has special on tornadoes, would like to get the lists opinion on the show. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 27 17:40:46 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA11378; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 17:39:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 17:39:52 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199809272150.OAA11073 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 14:38:29 -1000 To: Vortex-L From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Whirlpower Theory Resent-Message-ID: <"2xiNC1.0.in2.Ohj3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22769 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jeanette Clark/David Dennard (?) > I am not doing this for personal gain. Yes you are! > I think that would be foolish. Think what you like, but choosing to be poor when there are other opportunities available is *extremely* foolish! > This is so simple anyone could rip me off > that wanted to once proven. Rip *what* off?! Your personal gain? Glory? -- See??? You DO have a stake or personal gain in this, else there would be nothing to rip off! That which is given freely is not ripped off. That which is not given freely costs something. If you're so confused about simple things like this, how is anyone to trust that your "dreams" or theories about the physics of gyroscopes or relativity have the slightest practical merit? << [...] and have your << theories honored worldwide. >That is the plan Sheesh. You're part of that "Death of Shame" movement I've been hearing about too, huh? ----------------- Enuf. Back to specifics. You keep mentioning a top on a turntable. Every time we see a gyro here on the earth, we see essentially that, where the rotating earth is the turntable. Are you confusing gyroscopic precession, or the rotation of the 'turntable' with respect to the fixed orientation of the gyro with relativistic frame dragging? They are not the same thing. It is not within the scope of current human engineering to build rotating machinery that will deliver enough power via its own relativistic frame dragging to register on any known detector, let alone do any useful work. Ross tried to explain that to you. There are apparently other subtle "spin energy" effects that may have something to do with the specific arrangement of atomic matter in spinning materials and are in some way similar to magnetism, but these are also extremely weak effects. Are you suggesting gyroscopic precession due to gravity's force on a tilted gyro is a potential source of energy? Is this what you mean by having gravity provide the energy, and propose to do this by using a water-based gyroscope? There have also been discussions here on tapping gyro power from time to time, and there seems to be a general consensus that power could be tapped from the rotation of the earth from such machines, although the practicality of it with respect to other sources of energy seems rather low. I think there's even a patent on a device to do this. The trade winds we have here are partly coriolis winds from the earth's rotation, so the wind farms now putting this energy into the power grid are already tapping your "whirlpower". Try sending them a demand letter for the royalties they owe you. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 27 18:03:29 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA17792; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 18:00:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 18:00:33 -0700 Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 18:01:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809280101.SAA27682 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: tornadoes Resent-Message-ID: <"85bS82.0.tL4.m-j3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22770 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Bill, Let me thank you outright. This is the way a list like this should be conducted. I have heard of the reputation of the list and its flames, but that will not deter me nor will the threats. I think threats of kill files (whatever that is) should not be tollerated. But I do think there should be wide open discussion of all matters related to the vortex. Diagreement, criticizm, questions, agreement, breaking news, whatever, but out right uncivilized discussion should not be here. And I may be found guilty of that in my last post, with my little remark about a person's sanity at the end. So I offer my apology to the list. I am only human, and when I get an attack in such an unmannerly way I react. In the future I will try not to bite back when bitten. I wrote; > >This is wrong. The vortex in the tornado is actually going up not down as > in > >the whirlpool of water. > > I thought they formed horizontally, how can there be an up or down in this > configuration? Bill, as stated below. Sideways the pull is from little end of the cone towards large end. > > > >In many pictures some vortexes are from cloud to > >> cloud on a horizonal plane. > > > > > >All tornados start horizontally, then stand up, much like a top would do if > you > >started it horizontally, enough speed and it would stand right up. > > So how does it move UP then if it forms horizontally, does the centrifugal > force cause it to move in a direction against gravity? Yes like the top would. > > >Here we have to bring gravity into the > >> picture or would we? Maybe the power of the whirlpool of galaxies > overcomes > >> gravity at the beginning? Maybe when the whirlpool forces a vortex to > form > >> then gravity takes control much like the pressure differential decreasing > >> in the vortex of a tornado causing a never ending desire for more matter. > >> Unfortunatly we could not see the vortex because it has passed the speed > of > >> light, but we can see its effects on other surroundings. > > > > > >Man are your getting close. That is what frame dragging is all about. And > you > >can see the vortex in a spiral galaxy. The spiral galaxy is a whirlpool > and has > >all the properties of the compound vortex I describe in Whirlpower Theory. > As > >does the hurricane. The tornado is a simple eddy vortex, but as it reaches > >class 5 it almost starts to become a hurricane. > > Remember air vortexes go up, > >water vortexes go down. > > Could you please explain this more clearly, this is new area for me. > This is a new area for everyone. Almost everything science thought about he vortex has been proven wrong in the past year. I am quite surprised this list did not know that. But I know this list is not mainstream science. In the water spout it can be clearly seen that the vortex goes up. It can be seen a regular tornado but it is not as apprarent. But once you know it is. If that vortex was going down the splay of air at the bottom would kick up so much debris the tornado would not even be visable. As we all know it is quite visable, even to the very tip. It does kick up some debris but that is the effect of the dragging effect, (the word frame omitted for the time being). The spin increases air pressure and opens up a void that makes gravity push to fill. Much like gravity drives evaporation. The Sun vibrates the H2O molecule that opens a void, less density of the molecule due to excited vibration, and gravity takes it to the clouds. I wish I had cable, I look forward to hearing about the show. David Dennard From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 27 18:32:28 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA27253; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 18:31:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 18:31:30 -0700 Message-Id: <199809280132.UAA01673 neon.prysm.net> From: "Robert H. Calloway" To: Subject: Re: Tornadoes Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 20:22:57 -0500 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: <"HZ-U41.0.jf6.nRk3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22771 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hello David, Let me back up and try again. To start with a "water vortex" as is shown in many experiments such as water draining from one bottle into another bottle or into anything is not the same as a weather related whirlpool "forcing" a vortex to form. The water in the bottle forming a vortex is gravity at work for certain. The water bottle vortex is a experiment to show a person what a vortex would look like. It is driven from the inside out, A WHIRLPOOL "FORCING" A VORTEX IS DRIVEN FROM THE OUTSIDE IN". Many have the idea that a vortex drops down once the air is spinning as a gravity induced vortex. I am saying that the vortex is "forced" to be made. The whirlpool starts by warm and cold air opposition, as the whirlpool winds up it sends out a vortex for relief! The power in the whirlpool is "forced" in one direction "being up or down or sideways" as a vortex tube. The power is multiplied from the whirlpool down into the vortex creating much power in the vortex. I will use your exsample of the spining top you speak off. The top is fat at the top and very small at its tip. When you wind the top with string, you do so at the upper portion of the top. When you pull the string off the upper portion of the top, you create a spinning torque that is translated to the bottom of the top with much force. Whatever RPM and power you have generated at the top of the top is transferred to the bottom tip with much power. If you spin anything fast enough it will "elongate" at some point. The whirlpool gets to spinning fast enough and "forces" a vortex. Regards, Robert H. Calloway From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 27 18:39:25 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA30501; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 18:38:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 18:38:22 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199809272326.QAA19461 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 15:37:12 -1000 To: Vortex-L From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Need killfile for "Whirlpower" Resent-Message-ID: <"7u_Zd3.0.QS7.DYk3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22772 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: David - > And I think your threats border on the > criminal and to put it mildly, a slight touch > of insanity. Not at all. For your information, a "killfile" is where an e-mail "twit filter" puts discussions like this one so that a person doesn't have to see them. It's an e-mail filter, get it? Not a threat against you or anyone, but an action a computer program for e-mail can do. This doesn't censor the list in general either, it just affects the placement of certain messages arriving on the personal machine where one wishes to filter things. I use filters, for instance, to route all Vortex-L messages to a "Vortex" folder, etc, as well as filtering out senders or subjects I have zero interest in. Saves me a ton of time instead of trying to make sense of one huge "In" list of mail messages. Like this: Subject line contains: "Whirlpower" Action: "move to Trash" (killfile). I use Eudora Light on a Macintosh, and the filter funcionality on this freeware program works fine for me. Again, you really could use some perspective. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 27 18:59:47 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA04119; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 18:58:31 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 18:58:31 -0700 Message-ID: <360EE08A.15A3 earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 20:04:10 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Storms: Blue: CF discussion impasse 9.27.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"QxWTv2.0.D01.6rk3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22773 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Subject: Re: Storms: Blue: CF discussions 9.25.98 Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 09:46:50 -0600 From: Edmund Storms To:rmforall earthlink.net [Rich Murray: One way to proceed now might be to review Storms' recent work with excess heat from thin Pd films on Pt: he could mail his reports to those interested, and they could be posted on a website, such as Puthoff and Little's EarthTech, and a careful detailed critical discussion can be carried out on Vortex-L, and the most germaine posts put on the website. This would allow quick and detailed examination of a current excess energy claim, using the electronic journal format. What say ye?] Response to Blue 25 Sept 1998 Dear Rich et al. Let me try once more to establish a platform from which Dr, Blue and I can launch a discussion. Our respective positions seem to be the following: BLUE: Dick Blue rejects all claims for excess energy because the results are caused by error. STORMS: I accept some of the claims as indicating the existence of a previously undetected and unexplained phenomenon, not error. BLUE: I must presume that Dick Blue rejects all claims for the production of anomalous nuclear products because he has not commented on these observations except to reject the idea of transmutation. STORMS: I accept some of these claims as demonstrating that some nuclear reactions can be initiated under conditions which can not be explained by conventional nuclear theory. Consequently, Dick Blue sees no reason to question conventional nuclear theory while I see reasons to explore unconventional ways to explain these observations. --- BLUE: If unconventional explanations are used, they must fit with the large experience base on which conventional theory is built. STORMS: If unconventional explanations are used, they must fit with the large experience base on which conventional theory is built BUT: 1. We must be willing to admit that unusual conditions might produce unexpected results. For example, normal materials exhibit a form of electrical conductivity at room temperature which can be explained. In contrast, certain other materials having unusual chemical and physical properties can be superconductors at or near room temperature and a reason for this behavior is still not universally accepted. 2. We must be willing to admit that conventional theory may have gaps in its structure which, if filled, allow these phenomenon to be explained. For example, Y. E. Kim (Purdue Univ.) has shown, using conventional theory, that the coulomb barrier between deuterons is much less than previous calculations have predicted. This new insight results from including a number of factors which were omitted for simplicity sake by previous workers. In addition, new calculations (G. W. Robinson, Texas Tech Univ.) of the maximum translational energy of deuterons in such a structure is higher than previously thought. These two conventional behaviors when combined increase the ease which which fusion might take place if other conditions are favorable. These new insights may not provide all of the necessary understanding, but they demonstrate that gaps in our conventional knowledge do exist. 3. We must be willing to admit that the way in which past experience has been interpreted needs to be revised. An example is the way Einstein reinterpreted the way gravity was viewed or the way the matter-energy relationship was understood. Such giant steps do not happen very often but they are possible. Nor do I think such steps should be taken on a whim, as Dr. Blue suggests I am doing. It only requires a willingness to consider the possibility. The bottom line is: Dr. Blue wants me to demonstrate that the claims fit into conventional theory before he will accept them, and I admit this can not be done. Therefore, If Dr. Blue is unwilling to at least consider that a new phenomenon has been discovered and open the discussion to some unconventional explanations, we are wasting our time. This is a shame because the experience and expertise which Dr. Blue could bring to such a discussion would be a value to us all. Regards, Ed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 27 19:06:52 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA07114; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 19:05:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 19:05:55 -0700 Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 19:06:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809280206.TAA23927 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Whirlpower Theory Resent-Message-ID: <"p6RvH.0.zk1.2yk3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22774 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Rick says, > Jeanette Clark/David Dennard (?) I have tried to explain this several times I am using Jeannette's computer. Sometimes I forget to chang the name on the mail box. I just got a suggestion on how to remedy this and I am going to check it out. > > > I am not doing this for personal gain. > > Yes you are! I guess it would be better said I am giving this information freely to all. I think this is the best way to express this idea, a true Eureka. > > > I think that would be foolish. > > Think what you like, but choosing to be poor when there are other > opportunities available is *extremely* foolish! Since I am disabled, my opportunities are somewhat limited and my interests are my inventions so I don't need much and I have enough to meet my simple needs. It is only now that i have so many inventions that I am trying to do something with them that already several on this list are taking advantage of and will probably make a fortune while others criticize. > > > This is so simple anyone could rip me off > > that wanted to once proven. > > Rip *what* off?! Your personal gain? Glory? -- See??? You DO have a stake > or personal gain in this, else there would be nothing to rip off! Here you are correct as I stated. I am going for the glory not the gold. That > which is given freely is not ripped off. Plagerism happens all the time. That which is not given freely > costs something. If you're so confused about simple things like this, how > is anyone to trust that your "dreams" or theories about the physics of > gyroscopes or relativity have the slightest practical merit? I hope and I already know there are those with the wisdom to see, and I do not want anyone to trust my dreams or theories. Only through scientific analysis should a theory be trusted. And this should apply to all theories. I do think if I make a possible case and it has not been tried and it is something as simple as I propose, if it sparks any imaginations or interest then, there should be a reason for scientific analysis. Many poeple here see this. If you don't want to, that is fine with me. I don't want people that are so constantly negative and rude involved anyway. Nothing personal but I don't see the advantage or purpose of your attacks on a list set up for the discussion of exactly what I am talking about, and that what I am taking about science has no clue about anyway. For any of you to say science knows it all about this subject just don't know what you are taking about. If you have a reputation in science and you want to ruin it by acting like fools be my guest. But I doubt I will spend this much time again trying to help you. > > << [...] and have your > << theories honored worldwide. > > >That is the plan > > Sheesh. You're part of that "Death of Shame" movement I've been hearing > about too, huh? Never heard of it. > > Enuf. Back to specifics. > > You keep mentioning a top on a turntable. Every time we see a gyro here on > the earth, we see essentially that, where the rotating earth is the > turntable. No wonder you are confused. I am talking about a top spinning on a turntable, like a record player. This is nothing like what you say above. Are you confusing gyroscopic precession, or the rotation of the > 'turntable' with respect to the fixed orientation of the gyro with > relativistic frame dragging? No. They are not the same thing. It is not within > the scope of current human engineering to build rotating machinery that > will deliver enough power via its own relativistic frame dragging to > register on any known detector, let alone do any useful work. Ross tried to > explain that to you. Ross also says the Moon is riding on its own self generated tidal wave. So what he says does not add up to much in my book, I don't care who he is or thinks he is. That is plain ludicrous. There are apparently other subtle "spin energy" > effects that may have something to do with the specific arrangement of > atomic matter in spinning materials and are in some way similar to > magnetism, but these are also extremely weak effects. > > Are you suggesting gyroscopic precession due to gravity's force on a tilted > gyro is a potential source of energy? Is this what you mean by having > gravity provide the energy, and propose to do this by using a water-based > gyroscope? Not exactly, I have been talking about a top on a turntable. But in this context of the gyro (a gyro is not a top, by the way), if the point of contact of the gyro goes across a lever, fulcrum, gimbal, type mechanism I think it is possible. The precession itself cannot be tapped much like the vortex must not be disturbed in Whirlpower Theory. The fulcrum action is like the top gets a lever action at the bottom and spins the turntable. And if the context of the gyro, a water gyro is very possible and work is being done in that direction with people in Sweden that are promoting my theroy at Vortex World. David Dennard From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 27 19:09:49 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA08804; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 19:08:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 19:08:37 -0700 Message-ID: <004501bdea84$f480b420$a4b4bfa8 default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Cc: "George" Subject: Re: ZPE Galaxy Builder? Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 20:08:11 -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: <"k-ylx1.0.U92.a-k3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22775 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex While David Denard is "Frame Dragging" his Whirlpool. :-) The Pulsar "remnant" from a Supernova is about 2.5 Solar Masses and 10 Miles in diameter spinning at 632 Revs/Sec with a magnetic field of nearly a Gigatesla. Faradays Law: E = - d(phi)/dt indicates that charged particles on it's surface could get up to very close to c forming "Cosmic Rays" of tremendous mass/energy or causing local collision "Cascades" of Photons-Pair Production-Photons etc., and do the ZPE Extraction Bit: dE = hbar/dt making more Photons-Particle Pairs, thus building a spinning Galaxy "Disc" full of Stars that can Extract more ZPE for Burning-Mass Increase, along with enough Fusion Reactions to cause a "Missing Neutrino" mystery. :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 27 20:06:11 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA24142; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 20:02:58 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 20:02:58 -0700 Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 20:03:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809280303.UAA17157 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Tornadoes Resent-Message-ID: <"rtpMN1.0.8v5.Xnl3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22776 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Robert, You wrote, > Hello David, Let me back up and try again. To start with a "water vortex" > as is shown in many experiments > such as water draining from one bottle into another bottle or into anything > is not the same as a weather > related whirlpool "forcing" a vortex to form. Right, that is the eddy vortex, the other is the pull vortex, like the bathtub drain or bottle vortex you you mention above. You seemd to say before this was happening with the air vortex (tornado). The water in the bottle > forming a vortex is gravity at work for > certain. For sure, and the Pearl of Wisdom shows the air vortex is also gravity at work. The water bottle vortex is a experiment to show a person what a > vortex would look like. > It is driven from the inside out, A WHIRLPOOL "FORCING" A VORTEX IS DRIVEN > FROM THE OUTSIDE IN". And Whirlpower is both. A compound vortex with properties of both. Galileo, compound lense, telescope. Dennard, compound vortex, Whirlpower Galileo, Sun in the center of the Solar System. Dennard, Earth wobble drives the Moon Many have the idea that > a vortex drops down once the air is spinning as a gravity induced vortex. I > am saying that the vortex is > "forced" to be made. The whirlpool starts by warm and cold air opposition, > as the whirlpool winds up it sends out a vortex for relief! The power in > the whirlpool is "forced" in one direction "being up or down or > sideways" as a vortex tube. The power is multiplied from the whirlpool down > into the vortex creating much > power in the vortex. Except in the air vortex it goes up, starts sideways. And once that happens the vortex wobbles just like a top, it looks more like a wiggle and it drags its surrounding. In the compound vortex the top of the vortex is very large, like the hurricane compared to a tornado. Here you get much more wobble and much more dragging effect, and Gravitational ZPE Early vortex pioneers did not understand the "gravity of the situation" and tried to tap the vortex itself and just sunffed out the power. Whirlpower lets the vortex spin freely and taps the dragging effect. I will use your exsample of the spining top you speak > off. The top is fat at the top and > very small at its tip. When you wind the top with string, you do so at the > upper portion of the top. When you pull the string off the upper portion of > the top, you create a spinning torque that is translated to the bottom of > the top with much force. I guess you haven't spun a top lately. I was a champion top thrower 35 years ago. We made a loop around the top flat part and wound them from the bottom, held them upside down and threw them. Whatever RPM and power you have generated at the > top of the top is transferred > to the bottom tip with much power. If you spin anything fast enough it will > "elongate" at some point. The > whirlpool gets to spinning fast enough and "forces" a vortex. Agreed, it opens the void > Regards, Robert H. Calloway And regards to you, good discussion no flame. David Dennard From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 27 20:22:16 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA30216; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 20:21:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 20:21:10 -0700 Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 20:21:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809280321.UAA24788 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: tornadoes Resent-Message-ID: <"nWXBw2.0.wN7.b2m3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22777 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Bill says; > The show didn't give much, talked more about how the weather service tracks > a tornado than about the actual tornadoes themselves. They did say that > dust devils were completely different than tornadoes, I thought the > principles were the same. Hi Bill, I am disapointed too. I hoped there would be more on the new vortex discoveries. The dust devil does not form sideways at first is all I can see as different. It apprears to be an air eddy type vortex like the tornado but starts much closer to the earth where the air currents meet much more like the eddy in a stream. The tornado starts up high where the air currents overlap. I have a request, Robin, Fredrick, Robert, Rick, Mitchell, Before you turn on on your "kill files", I wonder if you could each answer my two most basic questions. Bill has already answered. Have any of you ever seen any data of a top being spun on a turntable? Have any of you ever seen any data of a giant whirlpool being built? No is just as important to me as yes. Sincerely, David Dennard "dream inventor" From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 27 20:35:42 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA02508; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 20:33:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 20:33:59 -0700 From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: tornadoes Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 03:35:23 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <36170399.69717258 mail-hub> References: <199809280321.UAA24788 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> In-Reply-To: <199809280321.UAA24788 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ADLGQ1.0.1d.cEm3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22778 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 27 Sep 1998 20:21:51 -0700 (PDT), David Dennard wrote: [snip] >I have a request, > >Robin, Fredrick, Robert, Rick, Mitchell, > >Before you turn on on your "kill files", I wonder if you could each answer my >two most basic questions. Bill has already answered. > >Have any of you ever seen any data of a top being spun on a turntable? No. > >Have any of you ever seen any data of a giant whirlpool being built? No. > >No is just as important to me as yes. > >Sincerely, > >David Dennard >"dream inventor" > > Now how does this help you? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 27 20:42:49 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA05805; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 20:41:14 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 20:41:14 -0700 Message-ID: <008201bdea91$e35fb620$a4b4bfa8 default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Subject: Re: tornadoes Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 21:41:28 -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: <"NX1h8.0.XQ1.PLm3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22779 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-L eskimo.com Date: Sunday, September 27, 1998 9:36 PM Subject: Re: tornadoes Robin wrote: >On Sun, 27 Sep 1998 20:21:51 -0700 (PDT), David Dennard wrote: >[snip] >>I have a request, >> >>Robin, Fredrick, Robert, Rick, Mitchell, >> >>Before you turn on on your "kill files", I wonder if you could each answer my >>two most basic questions. Bill has already answered. >> >>Have any of you ever seen any data of a top being spun on a turntable? > >No. >> >>Have any of you ever seen any data of a giant whirlpool being built? > >No. >> >>No is just as important to me as yes. >> >>Sincerely, >> >>David Dennard >>"dream inventor" >> >> >Now how does this help you? ROFL! You're so darn practical, Robin. :-) Best, Frederick > > >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 27 21:04:29 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA13400; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 21:03:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 21:03:25 -0700 From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Whirlpower Theory Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 04:04:47 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <36190515.70097852 mail-hub> References: <199809272213.RAA18795 smtp.jump.net> In-Reply-To: <199809272213.RAA18795 smtp.jump.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Z08G73.0.IH3.Cgm3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22780 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sun, 27 Sep 1998 17:13:01 -0600, Mitchell Jones wrote: [snip] >>Taking the effects into account that you mention, I find that one >>actually weighs less during the day (if I did the math correctly). >>Difference in absolute value of acceleration between day and night is: >> >>G*M*{[1/(R-r)^2]+[1/(R+r)^2]-2/R^2} >> >> >>Regards, >> >>Robin van Spaandonk > >***{Upon reflection, I have decided that my original conclusion that a >person would weigh more at night was wrong. There is, in fact, no >difference whatever. The reasons are as follows: > >(1) The "orbital centrifugal force" arises from the fact that a moving >object will continue its motion in a straight line unless acted on by an >external force. This means that an object orbiting about a central mass is, >at any instant, tending to move down the tangent line from the orbit at >that point. The centrifugal force is merely the force perpendicular to that >tangent which is necessary to deflect the object from the tangent and hold >it in its orbit. Since the orbital centrifugal force acting on the earth is >merely the pull of gravity exerted by the sun on the earth, it acts on all Here you appear to confuse centrifugal and centripetal force. You stated above the correct definition of centrifugal force (centre fleeing force), however you then state that this is the pull of gravity. That is not so. Gravity provides the centripetal (or centre seeking force). The two are not necessarily equal. This can be seen from your definition above : >"The centrifugal force is merely the force perpendicular to that >tangent which is necessary to deflect the object from the tangent" Note especially the word "necessary". When an object is in orbit, the two forces do balance one another, but only at the orbital radius (i.e. the centre of mass of the orbiting body). >the objects of which the earth is composed and, thus, deflects them all by >the same amount. Result: it gives rise to no tendency to press objects on No actually it doesn't. It "pulls" on the closer side more strongly than on the far side. IOW the Earth is in a field with a gradient. The Earth isn't pulled apart, simply because that gradient isn't strong enough to overcome the Earth's own gravity (and also cohesion forces), holding it together. If the Sun were replaced by a black hole, the field gradient might well be strong enough to split the planet asunder. [snip] >(2) The centrifugal force exerted on a person standing at a given point on >the earth, due to the rotation of the earth, can also be neglected. While Agreed. > >Bottom line: there is no difference between daytime and nighttime weight >due to either of these influences and, hence, there is no difference >between daytime and nighttime weight. [snip] However when I derived the formula above, I didn't take into account the tilt of the Earth relative to it's axis. This means that the formula provided is only strictly valid on the equator. For other places on Earth, whether one is lighter during the day or at night depends on the season of the year. E.g. At the winter solstice in the northern Hemisphere on the arctic circle, one weighs least at "midnight", while at the summer solstice (same place), one weighs least at midday. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 27 22:09:04 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA07160; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 22:07:46 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 22:07:46 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980928010802.00820330 inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney inforamp.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 01:08:02 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: Art Bell: Greer has hot OU device (= Mr. Energy?) In-Reply-To: <19980926.090649.12070.1.tv juno.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"uodN51.0.nl1.Ycn3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22781 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Tim, Rick, Vo, At 09:06 AM 09/26/98 -0700, Tim wrote: >Hi Rick, > >I wonder if it is Correa's Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge device (PAGD). >Greer said it was not anything chemical when asked by Bell if >it had anything to do with cold fusion. > >Greer also said it needed electrical input to get excess output. > >Was not clear whether it was patented or not. PAGD is patented, > >Greer is looking for some engineers and scientists to test. > It was not PAGD. The Company CEO apparently had already [recently] found some quality engineers and scientists to test it ...at no charge. . It almost sounds as if our mystery man, Mr. ZPE, (Mr. Energy!), might be the principal here. He also may be working with some Vortex-L folks. Just like our Mr. Energy, [ZPE] the operating principal will be released ..soon, within less than a couple of months ... perhaps weeks. The meat of the program starts at 01:32:57, when Stephen Bassett(sp), a politico(?) from Washington joins Dr. Greer... Dr Greer, is apparently [presently] visiting the West coast, admits that he is only a medical doctor ...but they did say that this *was* presently being investigated by several independent scientific teams, where it will be ... "properly and independently examined for it's *performance*". Some [or one] of these scientist(s) was someone of prestigious reputation.[or words to effect] These teams were *not* accepting money to investigate the prototype(s). (Hmmm...) He also mentioned that he was approached by the CEO of the Corporation, and not just by an individual, and that the prototype unit which he *had* seen working, would fit into a box the size of an air conditioner, and/or that it could sit on a desk top. He claimed that there was *no* black box, and we might surmise that this means all parts were open for him to observe, (although as a non scientist, he may not have understood the basic operation.) It requires a battery to start it, and he said that it used the "Zero Point". He earlier in the program, told us that he would not reveal whether the Corporation was Foreign or Domestic. I suspect the company is American, based somewhere on the West Coast, since Art Bell commented that it was a pleasant change that he [Dr Greer] was presently visiting here(!))[there]. Coincidence, maybe. Or it might be a UK company.(my own reasons.) I'm sure it is not the Correa device, since, to the best of my knowledge, the Correas have several un-replicated PAGD patents. Dr Greer, however, said that the device could be *easily* replicated, and that a patent had *not* been assigned (or applied for), but he did make a reference to appropriate timing in that regard... He sounding slightly paranoid at that point, but ..who knows? They calculated the energy industry as over a trillion dollars. (Probably a serious understatement.) Art Bell reported a bit on Dr Greer's bio... appeared to be good credentials, and he sounded solid.. very. Interesting that there was another story reported by Greer.. The second story dealt with the (under-reported) current serious instability of the planetary geologic and climate conditions as reported to Dr Greer by NASA. Under-reporting of climate changes, storms getting worse each year, and melting ice caps, etc. Dr Greer's story enfolded both topics as belonging together, since the NASA reasoning has the overuse of hydrocarbon combustion causing serious planetary changes from the global warming. Obviously, the cure is this O/U Zero Point Device. If the device is real, either one, we should think about how the market will (over)react. Obviously, being "short" in oil stocks could make us rich. So ... if this story becomes international and then is eventually found to be a hoax, who will have gained?? (Follow the $$) I pray that the story is true, and not a hoax, but I sort-of expect to be smotly disappointed. Colin Quinney. >I understand that Correa is going to give update at the Infinite Energy >conference on Oct. 11. Good to know that they are still at it. > >Tim > >( tv juno.com ) > >On Sat, 26 Sep 1998 01:12:46 -1000 Rick Monteverde > writes: >>On the Friday night 9/25/98 Art Bell show, UFO guy Steven Greer ( >>http://www.cseti.org ) claims to be in the process of helping to >>break an important OU device out into the public. The device is not his >own, >>but was shown to him by a third party company. He's arranging >verification >>tests at independent labs, and expects it is a principle/device which >will move >>well to commercialization for home power generation and may be compact >and >>powerful enough for vehicle propulsion. Sounded credible to hear him >>tell about it, but almost no details as usual. Some paranoia about the >>technology being suppressed if not handled properly, etc. >> >>Anyone have any clues on the nature of this one, or who is involved? >> >>- Rick Monteverde >>Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 27 22:30:30 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA11965; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 22:29:36 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 22:29:36 -0700 Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 22:30:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809280530.WAA17110 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: tornadoes Resent-Message-ID: <"mabmk2.0.nw2._wn3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22782 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Steve wrote, > Hi Bill, > That is what the WhirlPOWER claim is all about, see: > http://www.ledomedesprit.com/domeworld/whirlpower.html > References: <199809280530.WAA17110 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> In-Reply-To: <199809280530.WAA17110 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"I4VoE.0.CV2.R2p3s" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22783 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sun, 27 Sep 1998 22:30:20 -0700 (PDT), David Dennard wrote: [snip] >David Dennard >"the hardest working man in dreamland" I thought dreamland was area 51? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 28 02:13:41 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA03626; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 02:13:04 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 02:13:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199809280321.UAA24788 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 23:07:35 -1000 To: Vortex-L From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: tornadoes Resent-Message-ID: <"WOalO1.0.Vu.TCr3s" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22784 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: David - > Have any of you ever seen any data of a top > being spun on a turntable? > > Have any of you ever seen any data of a giant > whirlpool being built? > > No is just as important to me as yes. Of what possible consequence could the comments from little piss-ants like us have to someone who now categorizes himself with Gallileo? Anyway no, and no. But then I don't move in lofty scientific circles with the likes of Dennard and Gallileo, so maybe I missed that one. Have you bothered to define clearly what you mean by a top on a turntable? In other words: * Is the turntable initially spinning? * Is the top initially spinning? * Is the bottom point of the top held in a bearing or groove at some fixed point on the turntable? * Is the top out towards the rim somewhere, or in the center? * Is the top allowed to tilt, not allowed to tilt, restricted in tilt freedom on just one axis or another, or is there no fixed bearing on the turntable so the top is free to wander about the turntable? * What point is this vague description of a top on a turntable supposed to make? * Do you think a gy- er, top will drive a turntable with relativistic frame dragging when it wobb - er, precesses? * If yes, is your top a neutron star? * If yes, then I believe your theory! Indeed, a wobbling neutron star would be a huge source of energy. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 28 02:36:21 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA06504; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 02:35:25 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 02:35:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 02:32:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809280932.CAA20219 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Eye of the Storm (Dreams) Resent-Message-ID: <"XsBkG3.0.Xb1.QXr3s" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22785 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To all, Just a little note on the lighter side. All during today's discussion the area I am in, central California, has experienced a very unusual weather pattern. And is said to continue into tommorow. Coincidence, synchronicity, call it what you like, never the less interesting, as we battled out the ins and outs of the vortex, a vortex has been sitting directly overhead with this house practically dead center. Looks like a mini-hurricane going very slowly on the weather report. Now I haven't been in this area very long so I don't know the usual weather patterns, but on the weather reports they are saying this is very unusual, but then this has been a very unusual day! Thanks going out to my critics, and those who are genuinely interested for a great vortex day. Robin, area 51, codename Dreamland, has been changed, the new name and location is in question, last I heard. The dreamland I am speaking of is the real dreamland, I'm sure you know it well as do we all to one degree or another. Are you dreaming lately? Have you learned to ride your nightmares or do they ride you? Do you know you are dreaming when you dream or are you still in your subconscious? Any one want to share a dream or two? Who has had the tornado dream? David Dennard "wide awake in dreamland" From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 28 03:54:56 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA07629; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 03:54:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 03:54:17 -0700 Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 03:55:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809281055.DAA21420 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: tornadoes Resent-Message-ID: <"Xyi_g.0.7t1.Ohs3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22786 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Rick, Thank you for these excellent questions. I wrote; > > > Have any of you ever seen any data of a top > > being spun on a turntable? > > > > Have any of you ever seen any data of a giant > > whirlpool being built? > > > > No is just as important to me as yes. You said; > > Of what possible consequence could the comments from little piss-ants like > us have to someone who now categorizes himself with Gallileo? Galileo was scorned and eventually imprisoned for life because he dared disagree with then thought to be "real science" Back then "real science" and the church were one and the same so his was also excommunicated. My analogy to myself and Galileo is that I am saying things that science does not agree with. Now, whether I will be proven wrong or right will decide if I am worthy of catagorization with Galileo but for the present time I know and history knows how touchy science can be when sombody comes along with a different idea. As this list has well demonstrated. > Anyway no, and no. But then I don't move in lofty scientific circles with > the likes of Dennard and Gallileo, so maybe I missed that one. I don't move in lofty scientific circles either. > Have you bothered to define clearly what you mean by a top on a turntable? I have made a brief discription of a very simple concept but more elaboration is appropriate. > In other words: > > * Is the turntable initially spinning? No necessary, but wouldn't hurt or help one way or another in the long run. > * Is the top initially spinning? The top has to be spun first from an ouside power source. > * Is the bottom point of the top held in a bearing or groove at some fixed > point on the turntable? Yes, as stated, the top spins in a shallow round depression in the center of the turntable. But it is not held there by anything other than its own weight. Which would be considerable, in the hundreds of pounds range. > * Is the top out towards the rim somewhere, or in the center? When the top is spun it first does not wobble very much as it slows the wobble increases, then something happens, the point it is riding starts to make little circles. This is the action that turns the turntable. > * Is the top allowed to tilt, not allowed to tilt, restricted in tilt > freedom on just one axis or another, or is there no fixed bearing on the > turntable so the top is free to wander about the turntable? The top stays in the shallow depression. > * What point is this vague description of a top on a turntable supposed to > make? You call it vague I call it simple. The point is that when this action gets the turntable moving and a feedback mechanism maintains the spin so the top does not fall over (more on that to come) that this action will turn the turntable till the machine literally wears itself out, and will supply enough excess to turn a generator. Gravitational ZPE. > * Do you think a gy- er, top will drive a turntable with relativistic > frame dragging when it wobb - er, precesses? In a way that is what is happening. And since the precession itself is not tapped, but the action across the built in lever I think it will work. Whether or not it is "frame dragging" in the truest sense of the word I cannot say. The term frame dragging is used in space science and the action is not very well understood. Their are 2 main frame dragging theories but they do not cover all the known frame dragging studies. It is being called the newest and final frontier of scientific exploration dealing with relativity. (From the Washington Post, Kathy Sawyer). So for anyone to say they know it all or even most in this arena would not be wise. I do not say I know, I offer a theory to be proven or disproven. > * If yes, is your top a neutron star? You could call it that and print the name Neutron Star Top on it. But really the question is not really a question, obviously. > * If yes, then I believe your theory! Indeed, a wobbling neutron star > would be a huge source of energy. I do not think my theory would be right or wrong by your parameters since the understanding of this area is not clear even to the brightest of scientists. But any object in space that wobbles is clearly sending out dragging energy waves and I think any object anywhere that wobbles is sending out dragging energy waves. And these waves come from the wobble, and the wobble comes from the gravity of objects around the original object. In other words the wobble of the Earth does not come from the gravity of the Earth, but all the objects in the Solar System. Just like the wobble of the top does not come from the top, but from the gravity of the Earth. The wobble of the neutron star does not come from the neutron star but all the stars in its vicinity. Again thank you for your excellent and provoking questions. This is a very good way to discuss the possiblities. David Dennard From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 28 08:12:59 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA30396; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 08:08:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 08:08:04 -0700 Message-Id: <199809281508.LAA27602 mercury.mv.net> From: "Ed Wall" To: Subject: Re: Art Bell: Greer has hot OU device (= Mr. Energy?) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 11:09:03 -0400 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: <"jt2vL1.0.kQ7.JPw3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22787 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Colin Quinney wrote: > I'm sure it is not the Correa device, since, to the best of my knowledge, > the Correas have several un-replicated PAGD patents. > Dr Greer, however, said that the device could be *easily* replicated, and > that a patent had *not* been assigned (or applied for), but he did make a > reference to appropriate timing in that regard... He sounding slightly > paranoid at that point, but ..who knows? They calculated the energy > industry as over a trillion dollars. (Probably a serious understatement.) > Big hole in this logic. Saying something could be easily replicated does not make it replicable. To state that you are "sure it is not the Correa device" based on the apparent fact that their device has not been replicated in contrast to a device that does not have even a patent application is specious. I could easily surmise that it is the Correa device because Correa's voluminous documentation of the device seems hard to refute, so it must be Correa, so what? > Art Bell reported a bit on Dr Greer's bio... appeared to be good > credentials, and he sounded solid.. very. > So do Bill Clinton's, if you take him at his word. I'm not being cynical here. I believe that we are better off remembering that claims by unknown individuals do not constitute strong indications of anything. Ed Wall, former chaser of wild geese. NERL From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 28 08:32:28 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA06914; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 08:31:01 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 08:31:01 -0700 Comments: ( Received on ftpbox.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com ) Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com Message-ID: <360FABB4.6D9C9A13 css.mot.com> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 10:31:00 -0500 From: John Steck Organization: Motorola PCS - Rapid Tooling Applications X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Discussion Group - Vortex Subject: Re: Whirlpower Theory References: <199809272255.PAA07075 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"EKSch3.0.qh1.qkw3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22788 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: David Dennard wrote: > Oops, sorry again, > > Jeannette got in here and changed the name when I wasn't watching again. I am > going to have to figure this out somehow. David, Might I suggest http://www.hotmail.com ? You can get your own email account and use it on ANY computer that has internet access. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John E. Steck Senior Mechanical Engineer Rapid Tooling Applications Motorola, Libertyville, IL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Who watches the watchmen?" - The Comedian From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 28 08:47:35 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA13817; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 08:46:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 08:46:28 -0700 Comments: ( Received on ftpbox.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com ) Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com Message-ID: <360FAFA1.ADE62B0F css.mot.com> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 10:47:45 -0500 From: John Steck Organization: Motorola PCS - Rapid Tooling Applications X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Discussion Group - Vortex Subject: Re: Need killfile for "Whirlpower" References: <199809272326.QAA19461 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"c-RYW1.0.iN3.Jzw3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22789 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: David Dennard wrote: > Please explain to me what this list is for if not for people to discuss vortex > thought. .....and application. Theory is great, but pointless unless you have an experiment in mind. We aren't idea cheerleaders. As I mentioned to you in private, unless you start getting to the nuts and bolts of your theory (math, data, schematics, etc.) you will see interest drop off quickly. > All I asked was show me one study or experiment of a top being spun on a > turntable. I haven't found such infromation. You have the best idea of what you are looking to prove. Haven't you got an old turntable in the attic? Worse case you spend $5 at a garage sale.... Why not start generating the data yourself? It doesn't sound all that difficult or expensive to do. Just a suggestion. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John E. Steck Senior Mechanical Engineer Rapid Tooling Applications Motorola, Libertyville, IL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Who watches the watchmen?" - The Comedian From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 28 09:01:22 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA18702; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 08:59:36 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 08:59:36 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980928120054.00cf9730 spectre.mitre.org> X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 12:00:54 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Robert I. Eachus" Subject: Re: Microwave Water Vapor Experiment Cc: , "George" In-Reply-To: <003f01bde8ee$93df7e40$898f85ce default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"Zdbcv3.0.8a4.e9x3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22790 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 07:38 PM 9/25/98 -0600, Frederick J Sparber wrote: >I never did have a cork gun! :-) > >WITH SAFETY DISCLAIMER! I did a demo for chemistry class many years ago of phosphene, PH3. (This is not the phosgene gas used during WWI, but has its own hasards.) Phosphene is not hypergolic, but when you make it, you create a little bit of P2H4, which is. So if you bubble the phosphene through water you get smoke rings as the bubbles burst. However if you catch some air in a test tube, then add a bubble of phosphene you can propel said test tube about a hundred feet--or into very small pieces against the blackboard on the other side of the room. Creating phosphene is fairly easy, heat some white phosphorous in lye (Sodium hydroxide). The trick is that you first have to get any trace of air out of the apparatus, and once you finish, you have to be able to flush out the remaining gas. The "preferred" way to do this is with hydrogen--it's less dangerous than the phosphene. 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 Sep 28 10:08:31 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA10539; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 10:05:02 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 10:05:02 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980928124828.009b4a10 inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney inforamp.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 12:48:28 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: Art Bell: Greer has hot OU device (= Mr. Energy?) In-Reply-To: <199809281508.LAA27602 mercury.mv.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"JjOLX1.0.Za2.z6y3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22791 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:09 AM 09/28/98 -0400, Ed Wall wrote: > >Colin Quinney wrote: > >> I'm sure it is not the Correa device, since, to the best of my knowledge, >> the Correas have several un-replicated PAGD patents. >> Dr Greer, however, said that the device could be *easily* replicated, and >> that a patent had *not* been assigned (or applied for), but he did make a >> reference to appropriate timing in that regard... He sounding slightly >> paranoid at that point, but ..who knows? They calculated the energy >> industry as over a trillion dollars. (Probably a serious understatement.) > >> >Big hole in this logic. Saying something could be easily replicated does >not make it replicable. To state that you are "sure it is not the Correa >device" based on the apparent fact that their device has not been >replicated in contrast to a device that does not have even a patent >application is specious. > >I could easily surmise that it is the Correa device because Correa's >voluminous documentation of the device seems hard to refute, so it must be >Correa, so what? Hi Ed, Please allow me re-phrase.. Dr. Greer said it had not been patented, and the PAGD device is patented. Therefore it is not PAGD. The PAGD device appeared complex. My impression was that this device was not complex. It is my hope that the Correas will reveal something workable and potentially replicate-able at your upcoming conference. ( IOW, may it be examined by you, and pass.) If so, I will be the first to yell it from the roof tops with my small unknown voice. :-) > >> Art Bell reported a bit on Dr Greer's bio... appeared to be good >> credentials, and he sounded solid.. very. >> >So do Bill Clinton's, if you take him at his word. > >I'm not being cynical here. I believe that we are better off remembering >that claims by unknown individuals do not constitute strong indications of >anything. > Wisdom, or cynicism... touche. There are now two (separate?) ZPE devices with a revelation countdown. What are the odds, do you think? (PAGD makes 3) Personally, I hope both are from the same source, because the alternative is either 1.) an extraordinary copy-cat or coincidence, or 2.) a loud preemptive fraud to destroy any subsequent media attention to the real device(s). Colin Quinney. (open mind .. but cautious.) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 28 10:25:08 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA19203; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 10:23:45 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 10:23:45 -0700 Message-Id: <199809281724.MAA09911 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 12:23:44 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Daytime vs. Nighttime Weight Resent-Message-ID: <"7Xle91.0.wh4.XOy3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22793 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 12:21:34 -0500, guest wrote: >[snip] >>It was my understanding that we WOULD weigh less at night for the same >>reasons that high tide exists simultaneously on opposite sides of the earth. >>Since from a mathematical perspective the earth's center of gravity is what >>the sun is really "pulling" on, the side of the earth that is farthest from >>the sun would experience more orbital centrifugal force than the sun's >>gravity and the side of the earth that is closest to the sun would experience >>more of the sun's gravity and less orbital centrifugal force. The point of >>earth's center of gravity would experience both the sun's gravity and orbital >>centrifugal force in equal amounts that net to zero. >> >>Allen Nelson >[snip] >Taking the effects into account that you mention, I find that one >actually weighs less during the day (if I did the math correctly). >Difference in absolute value of acceleration between day and night is: > >G*M*{[1/(R-r)^2]+[1/(R+r)^2]-2/R^2} > > >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk ***{Upon reflection, I have decided that my original conclusion that a person would weigh more at night was wrong. There is, in fact, no difference whatever. The reasons are as follows: (1) The "orbital centrifugal force" arises from the fact that a moving object will continue its motion in a straight line unless acted on by an external force. This means that an object orbiting about a central mass is, at any instant, tending to move down the tangent line from the orbit at that point. The centripetal force is merely the force perpendicular to that tangent which is necessary to deflect the object from the tangent and hold it in its orbit. Since the orbital centripetal force acting on the earth is merely the pull of gravity exerted by the sun on the earth, it acts on all the objects of which the earth is composed and, thus, deflects them all by the same amount. Result: it gives rise to no tendency to press objects on the earth together or pull them apart, and can be neglected in any calculations of how much a person on the earth would weigh when standing on an accurate scale. Thus it does not enter into any difference between the weight a person will have at night and the weight he will have during the day. (2) The centrifugal force exerted on a person standing at a given point on the earth, due to the rotation of the earth, can also be neglected. While it opposes the earth's pull, and influences the weight which a person will have when standing on an accurate scale, it does not vary depending on the time of day. Its force is greatest at the equator, and is zero at the poles, so it will subtract more from the weight of a person standing at the equator. Such a person will weigh slightly less than he would weigh at the either pole. However, since this force is the same 24 hours a day, it also has no influence on the difference between daytime and nighttime weight. Bottom line: there is no difference between daytime and nighttime weight due to either of these influences and, hence, there is no difference between daytime and nighttime weight. --Mitchell Jones}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 28 10:25:11 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA19179; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 10:23:43 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 10:23:43 -0700 Message-Id: <199809281724.MAA09908 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 12:23:43 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Daytime vs. Nighttime Weight Resent-Message-ID: <"LDh7G.0.Uh4.UOy3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22792 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >On Sun, 27 Sep 1998 17:13:01 -0600, Mitchell Jones wrote: >[snip] >>>Taking the effects into account that you mention, I find that one >>>actually weighs less during the day (if I did the math correctly). >>>Difference in absolute value of acceleration between day and night is: >>> >>>G*M*{[1/(R-r)^2]+[1/(R+r)^2]-2/R^2} >>> >>> >>>Regards, >>> >>>Robin van Spaandonk >> >>***{Upon reflection, I have decided that my original conclusion that a >>person would weigh more at night was wrong. There is, in fact, no >>difference whatever. The reasons are as follows: >> >>(1) The "orbital centrifugal force" arises from the fact that a moving >>object will continue its motion in a straight line unless acted on by an >>external force. This means that an object orbiting about a central mass is, >>at any instant, tending to move down the tangent line from the orbit at >>that point. The centrifugal ***{Preceding word should be "centripetal." --MJ}*** force is merely the force perpendicular to that >>tangent which is necessary to deflect the object from the tangent and hold >>it in its orbit. Since the orbital centrifugal ***{Likewise. --MJ}*** force acting on the earth is >>merely the pull of gravity exerted by the sun on the earth, it acts on all > >Here you appear to confuse centrifugal and centripetal force. ***{It's just sloppy editing, Robin. Those sorts of errors tend to creep into my posts when I am in a hurry. (I have known the difference between centripetal and centrifugal force since high school physics.) Anyway, this has obviously prevented you--and probably others--from following my point, so I am not going to waste my time trying to untangle the resulting confusions. I will simply change those two words and repost the article. You can respond to that, if you wish. --Mitchell Jones}*** [rest snipped] From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 28 10:57:24 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA29996; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 10:53:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 10:53:33 -0700 From: RobIrving aol.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 13:53:31 EDT To: vortex-l eskimo.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Art Bell: Greer has hot OU device (= Mr. Energy?) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 168 Resent-Message-ID: <"4B_9Q2.0.XK7.Qqy3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22794 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Ed, > > Art Bell reported a bit on Dr Greer's bio... appeared to be good > > credentials, and he sounded solid.. very. > > > So do Bill Clinton's, if you take him at his word. > > I'm not being cynical here. I believe that we are better off remembering > that claims by unknown individuals do not constitute strong indications of > anything. Fyi, Greer is very well-known in another field, that of ufology. He is the founder of CSETI (Center for the Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence). He believes - or claims - that he is in regular contact with aliens. A good part of his philosophy is based on the idea that the US Government (or higher eschelons of such) are secretly in possession of most of the technology talked about here (and more), gleaned and back-engineered from downed alien flying saucers since 1947. When I went to Finland in 1996 to interview Eugene Podkletnov about his 'anti- gravity' paper (pulled from JPhys-D), I bumped into Dr Greer at a conference in Helsinki. I asked him his opinion of the implications of such a discovery, if true. He was not surprised, he told me, inasmuch as he could predict that we would be fed advanced concepts in small doses, gradually weaning us into the future, according to some cosmic plan that only he knows the details of. Bearing this in mind, I'm surprised to hear of this latest claim. I thought he set his sights higher than the inept scientific fumblings of mere humans. However, as something of a collector of Dr Greer's claims I'm not overly surprised. Rob Irving From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 28 11:15:18 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA01382; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 11:03:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 11:03:21 -0700 Message-ID: <360FCED9.94AF420 bellsouth.net> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 14:00:57 -0400 From: Terry Blanton Reply-To: commengr bellsouth.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Art Bell: Greer has hot OU device (= Mr. Energy?) References: <3.0.5.32.19980928010802.00820330@inforamp.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"vcw113.0.WL.ezy3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22795 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Quinney wrote: > It was not PAGD. I'll bet Greer caught the Newman Motor demo "near" Phoenix. > The meat of the program starts at 01:32:57, when Stephen Bassett(sp), a > politico(?) from Washington joins Dr. Greer... Bassett is a "Washington Lobbist" and leader of the Paradigm Research Group, see: http://www.paradigmclock.com/main.html > Art Bell reported a bit on Dr Greer's bio... appeared to be good > credentials, and he sounded solid.. very. Greer is a Tennessee ER doctor and considered a wacko by the wackos! His newage approach to Ufology includes desert trips to "meditate and call" Alien craft to land. He believes in alien abductions; but, says that only 10% of the abductions are by aliens . . . the other 90% are by the military for mind control experiments. I hope he really has something; but, I wouldn't put much hope in it. Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 28 11:28:49 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA12510; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 11:25:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 11:25:51 -0700 Message-ID: <013f01bdeb0d$7095a740$a4b4bfa8 default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Subject: probe Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 12:25:50 -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: <"AsMFo3.0.F33.jIz3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22796 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 28 11:34:27 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA17310; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 11:33:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 11:33:16 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980928143348.00903470 inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney inforamp.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 14:33:48 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: Art Bell: Greer has hot OU device (= Mr. Energy?) In-Reply-To: <360FCED9.94AF420 bellsouth.net> References: <3.0.5.32.19980928010802.00820330 inforamp.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"JBvvj3.0.FE4.gPz3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22797 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 02:00 PM 09/28/98 -0400, Blanton wrote: > >Quinney wrote: > > > >> It was not PAGD. > >I'll bet Greer caught the Newman Motor demo "near" Phoenix. > Or he might have had the Whirlpower dream. Point taken. :-) BTW, if it turns out that Whirlpower is a giant gyroscopic particle, who sues whom? Colin Quinney. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 28 12:01:19 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA01015; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 11:59:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 11:59:13 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980928150027.0206c100 spectre.mitre.org> X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 15:00:27 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Robert I. Eachus" Subject: Re: Daytime vs. Nighttime Weight Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <199809281724.MAA09911 smtp.jump.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"0F70T2.0.eF._nz3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22798 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 12:23 PM 9/28/98 -0600, Mitchell Jones wrote: >Bottom line: there is no difference between daytime and nighttime weight >due to either of these influences and, hence, there is no difference >between daytime and nighttime weight. Huh? Think about tides. What happens is that the gravitational attraction of the sun is exactly counterbalanced by the centripetal force from the earth's orbit. (Actually it is only exactly balanced twice a year, because the Earth's orbit is an ellipse.) At high noon you are closer to the sun than the earth is on average, so you are more attracted to the sun. Also the centripetal force on you is less than the average force on the earth. At midnight, you are furthest from the sun, and the centripetal force on you is higher than it is on the earth, and of course the sun is attracting you less than it is the earth. So at those two times your weight is less. Of course the moon has a greater net tidal force than the sun, so you will be at your lightest when the sun and moon are overhead during a solar eclipse. (Or directly underfoot, and during lunar eclipses as well, you get the picture.) When the sun and moon are together or at 180 degrees, the tides are called spring tides, when the sun and moon are at 90 degrees, they are called neap tides. In addition the strength of the tides varies with the distance from earth to the moon. 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 Sep 28 12:02:27 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA01061; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 11:59:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 11:59:21 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 11:05:37 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: probe Resent-Message-ID: <"HhVys2.0.VG.7oz3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22799 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ouch! Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 28 12:06:24 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA04655; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 12:04:08 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 12:04:08 -0700 Message-Id: <199809281905.PAA19596 mercury.mv.net> From: "Ed Wall" To: Subject: Re: Art Bell: Greer has hot OU device (= Mr. Energy?) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 14:47:04 -0400 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: <"IKfug3.0.d81.dsz3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22800 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Colin, Sorry about the over-reaction. > > Please allow me re-phrase.. > > Dr. Greer said it had not been patented, and the PAGD device is patented. > Therefore it is not PAGD. > The PAGD device appeared complex. My impression was that this device was > not complex. > > It is my hope that the Correas will reveal something workable and > potentially replicate-able at your upcoming conference. ( IOW, may it be > examined by you, and pass.) > If so, I will be the first to yell it from the roof tops with my small > unknown voice. :-) Me, too, but neither of us will be first. I have talked a lot to Mike Carrell about this. BTW, no one has final word on replication. It depends on how difficult the measurements are. Anyone can be wrong. The strength of a confirmation depends on not only the quality of the equipment used to test, but the ability of the tester to express concisely what was done and what uncertainties were encountered and the scientific-political climate (CF is a current good example). Every measurement has error. The best thinkers make mistakes. Evan Soule likes to repeat a quote to the effect that what is obvious is what somebody has the ability to explain clearly, but I don't think things are that simple. Once something is obvious, we take for granted how much effort and argument (and lost fortunes, health and grief) were entailed in arriving at that point. > > > There are now two (separate?) ZPE devices with a revelation countdown. What > are the odds, do you think? (PAGD makes 3) > Personally, I hope both are from the same source, because the alternative > is either 1.) an extraordinary copy-cat or coincidence, or 2.) a loud > preemptive fraud to destroy any subsequent media attention to the real > device(s). > I would vote for coincidence, but since I am not speculating in stocks, I see no point in casting that vote. Ed Wall NERL From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 28 12:06:56 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA04686; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 12:04:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 12:04:11 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980928150433.009035d0 inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney inforamp.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 15:04:33 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: Art Bell: Greer has hot OU device (= Mr. Energy?) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"mwrPi1.0.891.gsz3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22801 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 01:53 PM 09/28/98 EDT, Rob Irving wrote: > >When I went to Finland in 1996 to interview Eugene Podkletnov about his 'anti- >gravity' paper (pulled from JPhys-D), I bumped into Dr Greer at a conference >in Helsinki. I asked him his opinion of the implications of such a discovery, >if true. >He was not surprised, he told me, inasmuch as he could predict that we would >be fed advanced concepts in small doses, gradually weaning us into the future, >according to some cosmic plan that only he knows the details of. > >Bearing this in mind, I'm surprised to hear of this latest claim. I thought he >set >his sights higher than the inept scientific fumblings of mere humans. However, >as something of a collector of Dr Greer's claims I'm not overly surprised. > >Rob Irving Sooo... you're saying that maybe he's not as reliable as Art Bell (and I) made out??? Is this possible? Do some people actually pretend to be other than what they really are??? Damn! I am SO disappointed! I seem to spend my life being fooled. Oh, well... I still hope something comes ... soon. Dare I make the assumption that the best hopeful device [non cold fusion category] that has been observed for OU by reputable engineers so far, is the PAGD? (Say yes) Btw, IMO, "Mr. Zero" is disrespectful. I prefer it if we call him "Mr. Energy", or "Mr. Point". If nothing comes of his vortex ZPE device, THEN he can be referred to as "Mr. Zero". But until then, I would appreciate it if we refer to him by a name that is not so insulting. FWIW, Colin Quinney. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 28 12:10:47 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA06799; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 12:06:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 12:06:23 -0700 Message-ID: <001601bdeb13$22acd520$96b4bfa8 default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Subject: Re: probe Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 13:06:40 -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: <"smvSs3.0.sf1.kuz3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22802 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Horace Heffner To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Monday, September 28, 1998 1:01 PM Subject: Re: probe >Ouch! > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner LOL, Horace. How ya Doin,How ya Doin? :-) I was trying something sinister. Best, Fred > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 28 12:49:03 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA27393; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 12:46:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 12:46:11 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 12:47:29 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: what is VORTEX-L for? In-Reply-To: <199809272326.QAA19461 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"lYsjM.0.vh6.1U-3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22803 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 27 Sep 1998, David Dennard wrote: > Please explain to me what this list is for if not for people to discuss > vortex thought. Why does it upset you so? Deletion only takes one > second, that would be less than one minute of your precious time so far > if you don't want to read thoughts on the vortex. If fact, why are you > on this list if you are not interested in reading thoughts on the > vortex? The purpose of Vortex-L is partly determined by it's long-time users. But we do have a "charter" for defining an on-topic discussion. >From the vortex-L website: 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 Schaeffer, Huffman, Griggs, and Potapov among others.) Currently it has evolved into a discussion on "taboo" physics reports and research. SKEPTICS BEWARE, the topics wander from Cold Fusion, to reports of excess energy in Free Energy devices, gravity generation and detection, reports of theoretically impossible phenomena, and all sorts of supposedly crackpot claims. http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html So Vortex-L is a place for "professionals" to discuss the doing of Unconventional Science. "Professionals" means scientists, engineers, inventors, and advanced amateurs and students. The main topic is TESTING OF CLAIMS (testing of actual devices and replication of actual experiments.) There is a considerable amount of semi-on-topic discussion and totally off-topic discussion here. But the main topic is something like this: "I built some hardware which seems to violate current theories. I've tested it exhaustively and cannot find any conventional explanation for my results. Let's discuss my findings, help me find flaws in my work, and perhaps build replicas for independent testing." The further the conversation wanders from the above, the less "on-topic" it is. "Vortex" is simply the title of the very first discussion topic: the Griggs overunity device. The title of the list is a sort of arbitrary tradition. Also, this list sucks widely separated researchers into a small, intense, turbulent discussion, which hopefully generates more results than the simple conversion of initial motion into hot air. It occasionally strips all the feathers off of chickens, and rams wheat straws through the trunks of trees. :) Speculations about whirlpools seen in a dream are not on-topic. However, if your dreams inspire you to BUILD a self-acting whirlpool generator, and if your device should actually exhibit some unexpected phenomena, then discussions of it are completely on-topic. ((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (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 Mon Sep 28 12:58:11 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA31483; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 12:56:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 12:56:29 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980928145956.00ddb968 mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 14:59:56 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Art Bell: Greer has hot OU device (= Mr. Energy?) In-Reply-To: <199809281508.LAA27602 mercury.mv.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"gfeth1.0.kh7.id-3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22804 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:09 9/28/98 -0400, Ed Wall wrote: >Ed Wall, former chaser of wild geese. >NERL Gee Ed, if that's what you USED to do...what do you call your (our) present activities?... 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 Sep 28 13:36:35 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA13184; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 13:34:44 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 13:34:44 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 12:41:03 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: probe Resent-Message-ID: <"BusxN.0.vD3.ZB_3s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22805 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 1:06 PM 9/28/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote: >-----Original Message----- [snip] >LOL, Horace. How ya Doin,How ya Doin? :-) > >I was trying something sinister. > >Best, Fred >> >> >> It felt like it! (Sorry, I dosed off for a while. Haven't been attentive to what's going on. Had this wonderful dream going though. 8^) Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 28 14:51:59 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA18802; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 14:49:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 14:49:55 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980928174917.0070f7d0 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 17:49:17 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Art Bell: Greer has hot OU device (= Mr. Energy?) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980928145956.00ddb968 mail.eden.com> References: <199809281508.LAA27602 mercury.mv.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"UGAO41.0.fb4.2I04s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22806 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 02:59 PM 9/28/98 -0500, Scott Little wrote: >At 11:09 9/28/98 -0400, Ed Wall wrote: >>Ed Wall, former chaser of wild geese. >>NERL > >Gee Ed, if that's what you USED to do...what do you call your (our) present >activities?... Many of us are slowly scientific evaluating interesting physical, and sometimes, nuclear phenomena. ;-)X BTW, when will you post your sonofusion data wherein you attempted to duplicate Russ George? Are copies available? Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 28 15:57:26 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA15376; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 15:55:14 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 15:55:14 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980928175841.00dd4970 mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 17:58:41 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: sonofusion (was Art Bell: Greer) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980928174917.0070f7d0 world.std.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19980928145956.00ddb968 mail.eden.com> <199809281508.LAA27602 mercury.mv.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"XtikP1.0.8m3.HF14s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22807 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 17:49 9/28/98 -0400, Mitchell Swartz wrote: > BTW, when will you post your sonofusion data wherein >you attempted to duplicate Russ George? One thing at a time, please. As it turns out I have just (last Friday) completed a draft which chronicles our extensive efforts in sonofusion. We'll be done editing it in a couple of days and I'll be sending it first to Stringham as a show of sincerity from which I hope to earn an invitation to his lab with my Versatile Water-Flow Calorimeter, which was originally constructed for the sonofusion project. >Are copies available? Eventually. I want to give Stringham a chance to show me real excess heat before I publicize the report. If at all possible I'd like to add a final "success" chapter to the report. As to the other matter you asked about, surely ONE Russ George is 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 Sep 28 16:14:39 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA21316; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 16:11:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 16:11:48 -0700 From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: what is VORTEX-L for? Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 23:13:06 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <361015e8.139961146 mail-hub> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"G7ji72.0.oC5.pU14s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22808 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 28 Sep 1998 12:47:29 -0700 (PDT), William Beaty wrote: [snip] >Speculations about whirlpools seen in a dream are not on-topic. However, >if your dreams inspire you to BUILD a self-acting whirlpool generator, and >if your device should actually exhibit some unexpected phenomena, then >discussions of it are completely on-topic. > >((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (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 IMO David is no more off topic than many other speculative items that have been posted here before, most of my own included, and in fact probably more on topic than most. Where he got his idea is irrelevant. What counts is whether or not it is viable. David has already pointed out that he has difficulty with practical experiments, and certainly has a more valid reason than I do for not carrying them out. (Though I expect that a toy top on an old turntable should not be beyond his ability to arrange). As to dreams, it is told that Kekule got the structure of benzene from a dream. The subconscious is a powerful tool. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 28 16:41:21 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA00502; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 16:39:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 16:39:47 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980928194053.007136f0 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 19:40:53 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: sonofusion (was Art Bell: Greer) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980928175841.00dd4970 mail.eden.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19980928174917.0070f7d0 world.std.com> <3.0.1.32.19980928145956.00ddb968 mail.eden.com> <199809281508.LAA27602 mercury.mv.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"SA8US.0.l7.2v14s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22810 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 05:58 PM 9/28/98 -0500, Scott wrote: >At 17:49 9/28/98 -0400, Mitchell Swartz wrote: >> BTW, when will you post your sonofusion data wherein >>you attempted to duplicate Russ George? > >One thing at a time, please. > >As it turns out I have just (last Friday) completed a draft which >chronicles our extensive efforts in sonofusion. We'll be done editing it >in a couple of days and I'll be sending it first to Stringham as a show of >sincerity from which I hope to earn an invitation to his lab with my >Versatile Water-Flow Calorimeter, which was originally constructed for the >sonofusion project. That would be good, and hopefully you will improve your calorimeter's believability using some of the techniques and thoughts suggested on vortex. ;-)X =========================================== >>Are copies available? > >Eventually. I want to give Stringham a chance to show me real excess heat >before I publicize the report. If at all possible I'd like to add a final >"success" chapter to the report. > Good. Please consider sending me a copy since you claim you DONT get excess heat but they both (and others) DO. It might be interesting to find out the etiology of the discrepancy. =========================================== >As to the other matter you asked about, surely ONE Russ George is >enough!.... ???? Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 28 16:46:54 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA04126; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 16:45:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 16:45:41 -0700 From: RobIrving aol.com Message-ID: <95b412b0.36101e06 aol.com> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 19:38:46 EDT To: vortex-l eskimo.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Art Bell: Greer has hot OU device (= Mr. Energy?) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 168 Resent-Message-ID: <"5eqEl1.0.M01.a-14s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22811 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Colin, > Sooo... you're saying that maybe he's not as reliable as Art Bell (and I) > made out??? If you're looking for more than vague nonsense, no, reliable is not the word I'd use. Art Bell may disagree, or vague nonsense is just what he's looking for, as Greer is a regular guest on his show. > Damn! I am SO disappointed! I seem to spend my life being fooled. Isn't that half the fun of it? Rob Irving From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 28 16:52:35 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA28576; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 16:29:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 16:29:15 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="============_-1305097213==_============" Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 13:27:55 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: probe this Resent-Message-ID: <"RSFPL1.0.E-6.Al14s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22809 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --============_-1305097213==_============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Horace - > Had this wonderful dream going though. 8^) Me too! We were trying measure the whirlpower energy in this big heated whirlpool of water by sitting in it with little flowmeters attached to our skin. Donna D'Errico had come over from Baywatch to help out as my lab assistant. I am happy to report that the system was WAY overunity! - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI --============_-1305097213==_============ Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="LabHelp.jpg" ; x-mac-type="4A504547" ; x-mac-creator="4A565752" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="LabHelp.jpg" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAgEASABIAAD/7RJmUGhvdG9zaG9wIDMuMAA4QklNA+kAAAAAAHgA AwAAAEgASAAAAAAC2gIo/+H/4gL5AkYDRwUoA/wAAgAAAEgASAAAAAAC2gIoAAEAAABk AAAAAQABAQEAAAABJw8AAQABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAGQGQAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAA AQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA4QklNA+0AAAAAABAASAAAAAEAAQBIAAAAAQABOEJJTQPz AAAAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAA4QklNBAoAAAAAAAEAADhCSU0nEAAAAAAACgABAAAAAAAAAAI4 QklNA/UAAAAAAEgAL2ZmAAEAbGZmAAYAAAAAAAEAL2ZmAAEAoZmaAAYAAAAAAAEAMgAA AAEAWgAAAAYAAAAAAAEANQAAAAEALQAAAAYAAAAAAAE4QklNA/gAAAAAAHAAAP////// //////////////////////8D6AAAAAD/////////////////////////////A+gAAAAA /////////////////////////////wPoAAAAAP////////////////////////////8D 6AAAOEJJTQQAAAAAAAACAAA4QklNBAIAAAAAAAIAADhCSU0ECAAAAAAAEAAAAAEAAAJA AAACQAAAAAA4QklNBAkAAAAAEFYAAAABAAAAWwAAAIAAAAEUAACKAAAAEDoAGAAB/9j/ 4AAQSkZJRgABAgEASABIAAD//gAnRmlsZSB3cml0dGVuIGJ5IEFkb2JlIFBob3Rvc2hv cKggNC4wAP/uAA5BZG9iZQBkgAAAAAH/2wCEAAwICAgJCAwJCQwRCwoLERUPDAwPFRgT ExUTExgRDAwMDAwMEQwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwBDQsLDQ4NEA4O EBQODg4UFA4ODg4UEQwMDAwMEREMDAwMDAwRDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwM DAwMDP/AABEIAIAAWwMBIgACEQEDEQH/3QAEAAb/xAE/AAABBQEBAQEBAQAAAAAAAAAD AAECBAUGBwgJCgsBAAEFAQEBAQEBAAAAAAAAAAEAAgMEBQYHCAkKCxAAAQQBAwIEAgUH BggFAwwzAQACEQMEIRIxBUFRYRMicYEyBhSRobFCIyQVUsFiMzRygtFDByWSU/Dh8WNz NRaisoMmRJNUZEXCo3Q2F9JV4mXys4TD03Xj80YnlKSFtJXE1OT0pbXF1eX1VmZ2hpam tsbW5vY3R1dnd4eXp7fH1+f3EQACAgECBAQDBAUGBwcGBTUBAAIRAyExEgRBUWFxIhMF MoGRFKGxQiPBUtHwMyRi4XKCkkNTFWNzNPElBhaisoMHJjXC0kSTVKMXZEVVNnRl4vKz hMPTdePzRpSkhbSVxNTk9KW1xdXl9VZmdoaWprbG1ub2JzdHV2d3h5ent8f/2gAMAwEA AhEDEQA/AMDo/R+mX9MxrrsZj7HsBc4jUlXf2B0f/uJX9xUeg/8AJGL/AMX/ABWi3Uqs SbOp3bUYx4RoNmh+wOj/APcSv7ikehdFaJOLWAOSdP4rRsa6qo2PBgaAeJ8FnbbH2brD vcZLWdm/1v6qs4eWnPWRMQwZeYhDQREiiHSehO+hiMd4mDA/tFWWfV3oxG44lYbEl0GB 81IPrxvdbNjwPaAJidNGKGQ7Ot2uss2MDh7QRA1+i4+1quR5TGBrZ+rUPNTJ0AH0SWdA +r1TPdi1S6dT2EfR5+k5yF/zf6Ntn7IzyMGFlZmaRnDLAL6CQ2Ae8BdP03MpyKtoZt3T LTpKjlyYlfDIgjZkHNcNcUQR1Lm/83+jf9xK/uKnifVvo2ZfZTTj0A0M9S97jDK2fv3P n2LN+tNPUKHCxtjjiOEBrZEGPzwsPFycltd1DLHNotLXWsBgPc2dm/8Ae2bnqPDyc55Y 45EiyzS5iHDcIgu11rC6DjO9HArouLIFtrQS3d3ZSXbN+3+oue9PG3/QEfaNvA+js4/z lZVXY7fx/wBqPx2LWychhEcOED5pSEp/p6Y5y3YBllZlpoNuj//QzOgD/JGL/wAX/Fb3 S8X7RkMZ4kAzxDZfYf8ANrWH9XY/ZWGTwGAk+QldZ0KplAvzbtGVVABvhv8AzP6ztqjx xuf1Z8k+HHfg5vW3A2NxMf3Xawzu1oDf0tn7v0tyznVt6djeo4h1ljSKwef5Vj/5P5y2 KOm2N9XPynRkdTI9vGxmttrnN/k0saueybG5uddcfoHVtf7rAWtpa4/vW/olrw28tHKk dfzQVj0mb3AmDIB1c9x43fyv/UiVlNvqm3JfvsE/o/zWTOnu37Gs/cRsVwstdeB+jxJc P5dx9rP7Pt3pmsLMV7hq5zhqe7jx/wCTThGwtvVzcsBtVtW0w4CJHh7uFa+r2S+gFtw/ QAgveT9CTAf/AFf5aK3Btsqsd2Lg1vnx/wCTRemYTRY/HtB9Mg12DvseN0/5zXJRhKwa TKYovQ9R6NTn9NsYchrTBdWYn3N1aFwWX0q7D9UuLNweQxpMb4OzeB+7pvXddGofhV/Y rHb6HE+lYOxOpasH639PNN/rctfqD5KfBjJyjWpV/wA3wRiyAEx37PMVA1vNjzL3aEDh v9VV/U9/f+kz/wBBWSqn5/8A6Ef98VrNjHHy8enHL/0lkbAOkvJ//9Gp9Wqt3RcFne0R Pl7v/IruPsVTMVuORDTDsgjlx+lW3+qzeuM+pbRdj9PZr7GB5B4gezb/AGnFd11FwBZW dGveA499oHqP/wCgxP5ePqJ8Uc1L0xHg43Vcgsrvc7QVAU1R29Qe939mqt7FyMMqx7Lw Pe4bnfLSlo/zmf5i6Hrtzn9Gxbjo7Kse6PADf/31y5+2vfRSwc3uE/AfR/6paMB6Wgd0 uPQMbCDT9K39K75t0/7+pBrQyms8by5/ntap3u3XAfmMboPKfaFTsyDU8PeDDe/aSrGO IrVjNk6O9iUUuYGRAYdzvl7/APvrENtVVfULw0aCthPyP/kXIHTMnfJklvcyoZN4bnnb MPrB050O1TCH2LKOroV5TX1+mPa6CWEdns/SN/zm70DqtR6p0ax0A5GLMzwQ36bZWXZk XYoruuaWbbGNcdQNTo73bf3tqu9Iz2vyLRM13PcHcRDkAAJWD6h6lAGOvZ461m15EQQY ImYVDTf/AOhH/fF0n1lw24/UHur0Fnu08/doud19T/0J/wC+KfNIcXLz/rSP/jORtxn+ rlLw/a//0of4uC2yzCYOWUuc7yA/8yW31fq78l+bTQRNI9KstOvvG7IsH/FUU5C576iW uxej35jSGuZjPrafNzqdf+km6ebLMPqmUSQX1mqpx5Juc5tpaf3m1NsarPLQ9Jl3OjBz ErkB2Db63a5vSOl0cFtYJHebG1v/AO/Khjw/KMfRqHt8iIrYl1vJ9XNqpB9lLWx8mVtC liMbVTXYdHXu3On9xm5//kFexjYNWR0tK5pL3EDUk7R5D6H/AFSDR0nGFJbYwC4kOGRq HiPpN+l7/U/OUm5BFrZIk6x5fmrW9aj0HGQHEc9+FaOIERJF0xiUhfi5fTq205hq3bmE aA+JClmdNF7/AFC9w0iBMccHbCq9NyG25bXAhte4Brp5K6G30a7YDgQRqJkT2RIEhw60 VEmMreZ6j0wDGyLad1NJawfZ5L2khw94dY9zmrNwbX4mS1j9KrAA4nSJ4cul6va1uLaZ 02x8z7QsW+hl/TaciNWu9J/z+jKZ7YjOPD0C8S4hr1b+bR9uxGwPUdXG2NSazq139hch sdv7/wBL2/PYum6fdfViH0yRZS6Kz/JJII/srJ/alfr/AM23b+0Ptff6Xo/zXH0fUT8s jeD+/L/0lNMB6Jx8v+lF/9PG+rlo/ZFeIzWy5k6f1m+3/oK1d1CAOn0jbRjtIscBAc8l vqe787a83Kp9V6v8n/aZk047trBO6dBv0/4xWM7p32Cmp1zpueQ+5o5AcN4Y7X/hGq9y 1+19S1s1cf0aVjvXzwP3oB+ENn8iu5FwbudPA1Hg0fRaP63tVLCZ/lB8nUCB84VtuOxx twLzGQR+je7guHuDm/2Vexx0JasjrTXxmPfYHOOrnDdr2KvZdowH1eoHFtvDmDcP6hWf sycOxoyWGsO+idC10fuvatBxbl0momZ1afA+KlhKxWyjuD0S41eFkkP+zu01aQwjX5K2 bccuNLanMfYJILYkDug9Lb1LAa8AG5ruCHFkd/3XKbn2M35OU6HEBoJJMD4/ylIOpNAK lwVobPRodSx7bW147SfcS92v5rBv/wCqQW1uZ0rPqPLGNubP8h0FyajqDsrKfeGllZZs YwxoI93+c5zletrL67SB7bcZ7I8ZrH/f2qM+omY+i0mqBaWA6cRh7ug/e1h/6pq5/wBG z1Yj/tdt+fpyt+xzMDExy+GgsAAJgSN7Dq5YH2jK9SfTdP2/d/b9OPT4+kosspceHzl5 8XtzZYAcGQ+I/wCk/wD/1M36l7Rj1eoP0LajZYf5LS123X2/pNvpq31susrutt+nc4ug awT7tqzejZuLj9Bx6X2tY+3aX7p+juaf/Rau9T69g34lWLjma6DuNhkl7navdt+ixm42 LR5aEo4gSPm/Jq5tZ+TmYjbLM5llA3Pc39Gw6boAmv8Arv2rZzsjpfU+n1Usc6rJb9CW iQ4fSZv/AJMLnKMsU5DC61oAdvqfH0TO5vqfm91rZeDiZz3ZlIONnvIfa15JptP/AANp 9v8AKbt/7bVmMrFDXuGvOPqs6dit9pe6l3T84e23Rtmshw+i5m/c1Arrv6faBY4Wsd9F zZB0/kP/AO+p/t1oAoueWzoJaNI7exWsHEy76rGUW031g7hW0+4f9++ipI6kEI2Gujcx +r1sr9wIE66HuqnWL/UArEtdXteWnwJLWz/mpvs+0jf7S0yQqfWri3qQtP0LmsH+YZ/8 kpcvpjffdbEAy0TdPw3V0sLh+/28Pcr9d5e5jeAxj9P5MOl3/RUOl5tGUx4BAAbYaz/K cGVNH+cj24zcbHdc9wL72Cimsak7juyLP+l6Nf8A24miQEQAtI9Rt5r6yudffjVNMVsq c4kyRLrH9mrn9tu/6bp9Tb3/AHef81dHm1Nsz2td7Cxu0E9gB+cqP2en1o3f9rtn9n0p 3KrPFWWE73mR/wAyTZBHtSj/AFf+6f/V5jpeGzI6bQLNdzIB7j4Kq5hxch9VnuFZh4Hc fyVv/V+lp6NiujXZr96q/WOiqoUXtEOe7ZYfGQNh/s7V0WAQGOHELiYxv7GgJ3klE9SW r9jwMi0VNJDWwXv7wRuaGrbD8Y41dLC5rAB6biA6yP5Lnbdn+e9c5hOIu2aEu4B4kfmf 22rcY9r9W+13geQj7IjIggDtXZZkBBq0WVjYg9+6x1rjAboRr++923/oVKx03ZSCcfdW 8D3OB5MeA9qgbgDBElJlkOkCPgnxxRBsLCSRRbN5aD+kO9zhzws7Jxn3jbcA9rNWmS14 /tfR2qy5zSd2pIUm73tJmAeRCfKAkKOyBps5/SwKLdjJ2OcAwEgnxctbM6jUys22NL7M dnpY1P5u/m3Iud+c5v8Ag2LNfhiq0WsjTlpGhRzTV1V9OOQMX04bba06EE/mA/4T+s9Q TxmMarbZJoytyftHq3WZBbutcdAfognV3t/6lUIyPW41+1Tz+d6X/kV2NnQGi1mNiHbX SwHe4S57nT+ldH70PXPfZ6vWncZ/ano8/melG9VsgN4tf0if/G5ssZx4ZnsB/wBKL//W yeg3lvSMZsxDNPvQ+ukX4jmTJ5Cy+m9VxKMGmt9zWua2C1Su6rhPn9M0ytsZ8fsxjxC+ EA6+DQ9uXuGVHc9GlVZ6lYM/pG6O+Pb/AKlbeDmvsrA3y8D3NMEjty4blzrMjGZkPIsG x4OvnptRq8+it4sZaGubwVaw5sWTFEzyREo+nWUf0WWeMyGz0jWg8orHsbyJWbi9e6fY 0i+1lbxxqYP4I46z0nk5FZ+9H3sQ/wApD/Gi1jjntwn7G6bGEQBKmxro9shU29e6Q3i+ v/X5Ig+sPSiCPtNY8OU4Z8X+ch/jRWmE/wB0/Y2DVuBDiqeTjvqY99Ty141aW8yk7rnS if6Wz70KzrPSjxksKRzYSKOSH+NFQhP90/Yh6d1jKwsh1ttjnVPlt29xlzh9D/M2qr9q /TT6mv7T39vo+nt38fup8/qHSrKHbX1veSIHzWNOJ6k+oI9WP7GyN/8AnKnk9vjxj3I8 PGdeIf5ubPGJ4Zy4TdAVX9Z//9k4QklNBAYAAAAAAAf//wAAAAEBAP/+ACdGaWxlIHdy aXR0ZW4gYnkgQWRvYmUgUGhvdG9zaG9wqCA0LjAA/+4ADkFkb2JlAGSAAAAAAf/bAIQA Eg4ODhAOFRAQFR4TERMeIxoVFRojIhcXFxcXIhEMDAwMDAwRDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwM DAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAEUExMWGRYbFxcbFA4ODhQUDg4ODhQRDAwMDAwREQwMDAwMDBEM DAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwM/8AAEQgAbgBPAwEiAAIRAQMRAf/dAAQA Bf/EAT8AAAEFAQEBAQEBAAAAAAAAAAMAAQIEBQYHCAkKCwEAAQUBAQEBAQEAAAAAAAAA AQACAwQFBgcICQoLEAABBAEDAgQCBQcGCAUDDDMBAAIRAwQhEjEFQVFhEyJxgTIGFJGh sUIjJBVSwWIzNHKC0UMHJZJT8OHxY3M1FqKygyZEk1RkRcKjdDYX0lXiZfKzhMPTdePz RieUpIW0lcTU5PSltcXV5fVWZnaGlqa2xtbm9jdHV2d3h5ent8fX5/cRAAICAQIEBAME BQYHBwYFNQEAAhEDITESBEFRYXEiEwUygZEUobFCI8FS0fAzJGLhcoKSQ1MVY3M08SUG FqKygwcmNcLSRJNUoxdkRVU2dGXi8rOEw9N14/NGlKSFtJXE1OT0pbXF1eX1VmZ2hpam tsbW5vYnN0dXZ3eHl6e3x//aAAwDAQACEQMRAD8Ax8LDxbMWp762lxbqVY/Z+F/oWpun /wBDq/qq9VS6ww0KfQCzTHqTQaY6dh/6Fqb7BgzApa4+XH+er19YrOwmBwY5cf3U21tb Wl45+izyVaecfogNiGH94oaukYbxPotj8P8AOck/pvS6xJrYSex/6pGss3V7rn7WcNYJ 1j+Ss/JD3EOrkGoaA9x+co45Z3rX2MhxxrZOel4m3eKAW+KG7B6ewS+tjR4nRafTsk3U jdB7GP8AvzVldawHVWC5hJY/sddp/kKSGcbSA4mOWE7g+lNX0/pRxRl2hrKnEipoE2W7 fa59bHO9lO//AAyzcmnFa6vbW0AvYCB4F3vY56akEVAuPbv2b+6mvj02Pn2726/NMOSU pAbRvo2o4IRwykRxZDAy9X6L/9Ch00E4lIifauh6e1teLZkP0a0bd3/Tsc3/AMDrrWD0 phdiUxy4R8vzl1P2cuorx3CK2w+0DuSfU9JHLKoAd04x6rcoVSDlXiJabNv7lc/o2f8A GWqi57rHm2z2tA48h+b/AGP/AD6tPqbyawG82OBA7bW/osSv/wBHrO2NddXTyxvud5tZ /wClXqkW2NlhXqC7+ccN2uvps/wTf66rWNc5xDTwDPdaOvqWWHkCfmiUYY9Nx5cQAP8A X+u9DipdwW5vT67K3FzNXtkhvZ0fTqXQWehm4Dg2se8d/pMcFVpxhVkvAMRDh891ausL Kjvb9EwHjt7vovTTPW1cFB5PIpYHBuyA3xP0v67VWySdrPD1GflW51nG2XBzeH6hYeSN K/8AjGf9UpYSuQ82zMD2JEdYSf/Rb6uM9RuMOWtZ+UrpMm309x42tk/Fx9Ktv/biwPqj Bq3dq6wT96vZeQ699Yq+jZa0Od/JDvRoZ/1x7cq5R5jqB4MmMNTPM5hrH5kNHkQ3b/0F Xq5uu/sN+AUsmwHNuf4OcR8Xe1qIxgFLR8HH/wA+f+k1VJbURsje7a2D+dz/AK/2Fbxb gXDaZVZ2Kbbf0hcKw2BsO07v30ses0XBhILTzCaQKu2UdiG0+zZku1+k0a/BA+0xoTo9 rgJ+G/8A6FrEsrGufZvY/bEjTmFQzcbJFfueX1iwenu1sGn57mpCIPVRNdNnWsDcvBLD q5g3NK5jJaZrb39Vg/6S1em5TwfSd9JsxP5zfz2IHUaGsyMd3+DfdXr5b2p2PSYHiuJ/ U5B3hKT/AP/SF0G/0OjXPBhzixgjmB6ljlcxv0dOIXHU2G5w+AfVjf8AoyxZXRnB2GKn GGAb3H4bmo/2l73F7tNfa0cMaA1lbVXyXxHybGMDgHmxrm6538txn+rKuuuAbP7xkfD6 NX/UKliQK3PP52gSe7dbtdw3n4qA66NiArV2Me6vb7vkqVtw+1On2taRJPmkGuGKXVQb W9j+cFPDe/IHuawx2J/8mgAzeOzoepVMh24QN3xVDqNrW1iNSXAAfD3qwXP3+kQ3aBJL TMBUsigXW7Qf5oaD+W4t/wC+IAUdUHQebXyatlzLa9N4D2nzna5N1G0huOzbIddU9o8H h7d7Ea9pNGOO7Hur+TmutYq/UXe7Hd4X1mPi5jk/HrOPmsmR7c/7r//TrdBp9fBNQO1z y2XfyBufYi5jWDIHpN21O9rR/JH0EPoZ9LAa6JddDB/VHvs/7c/m0bqYLHwHSWAFwb2f /halXyfOW1i+QWrp9QvoNbfpj6P8l37yT2Nvd6dv6DKZpJ+i6P8Avn/ntQwjvb+hd6d4 JNLidoeD/OYtn/otJ9zriWZTXMuaYLvzlBRss99Fqrn1WejaNrx2/wDIrRpx6ne9rixx 5LTH/UrPc5rmtqsEn8x+3w/6j/txFr9Vrfa4nsECyQvZtZFjcavTVzjEnX/PVHB3yHuM ucQ4k99dybLtIt9JxkFrCCf3iff/ANUrlVQNJLNdrQPmX+m1A7f3kE3LXoyNbNwaDIbY 0/g5n/f1z2VmV25NbZhtdzIPYgObvW6Sa6t503OJb/Ur3N3f9ufza5m7GIra6I/SNH+c f3lJhriF99GLLfCeH5eE8T//1M3BGScKo1PLS1ugCZjX3ODS+Hdp4K0ek1D9nUO7lqpZ jRVlvYNJ97fn9P8A6apmRMpDxdTHGJhEHrEcP95JhYtnquLng0TqD+cf+C/PVzKptv8A bI9ujXOI3x/wj2/+jv0iq4jhGvA0B/dP0Vb3AD+SoyTahjG2yPDNrHwLA4DTafeHf2lc fBcXQGA+HCrAsBlojzU3Hd347Jp1LJGNNLMrNzgdWvZ+fEsI/so/TLXNAY92kw4/1f8A zpGEuBgCPFVmVGm3c6XM/dmDH7qN6UtMNb7tjqFzfTNjnQ5/toq/cqb/AISz9z/glh5L 4x2MmSbGOJHA9y2G4TMvILgSKBLtp+m6P8GxqqZ2K6qul7mgNsurhv8AJ3N/1/64pMZH FEf1gwTsRl/dk//VH0q2On0CeGql1VxNjbW6liDhXZTcSsMx3PaG6O3ME/5z1DIuyC07 6CB/WZ/5JUxH1k2Nz+k6HH6IgCW0f0Z/Mlqt2ObY0naR28CtMONjQZkdiP8AzFYNNlwq aBSSNYO5vE/1lcxb80a145czuC5gH9nc9KUexj/jNkziaJ4o5K9UeDI6rYb2RN08NVP7 Tlz/AEN3/blf/pREblZ8aYTv+3K//Sii4T/V/wAeC3jH9b/EyNprHR4JnVgiCUH7V1CN cJ/ysq/9KoRycydcN/8A25X/AOlEOE/1f8eCeMdpf+F5GGXXZWz9G90HRwaYkFVMvNss xqqHumyu1hH9Xd7Gf9aVp2Tl/wDcR3+fX/6UWbl3Wm+ouoLXB7No3MMw9vt9r/z1LjB4 o3XzfvRYcpiYyq/kl+jN/9k= --============_-1305097213==_============-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 28 17:02:29 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA12013; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 17:01:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 17:01:04 -0700 Message-Id: <199809290001.TAA18589 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 19:01:03 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: what is VORTEX-L for? Resent-Message-ID: <"pG4wZ.0.Ux2.-C24s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22812 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >On Mon, 28 Sep 1998 12:47:29 -0700 (PDT), William Beaty wrote: >[snip] >>Speculations about whirlpools seen in a dream are not on-topic. However, >>if your dreams inspire you to BUILD a self-acting whirlpool generator, and >>if your device should actually exhibit some unexpected phenomena, then >>discussions of it are completely on-topic. >> >>((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (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 > >IMO David is no more off topic than many other speculative items that >have been posted here before, most of my own included, and in fact >probably more on topic than most. Where he got his idea is irrelevant. >What counts is whether or not it is viable. David has already pointed >out that he has difficulty with practical experiments, and certainly >has a more valid reason than I do for not carrying them out. >(Though I expect that a toy top on an old turntable should not be >beyond his ability to arrange). > >As to dreams, it is told that Kekule got the structure of benzene from >a dream. The subconscious is a powerful tool. > >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk ***{I think what Bill was trying to say, perhaps in a too gentle way, was that a speculative idea must be worked into the form of a legitimate scientific hypothesis in order to be relevant to this group. To that end it must be specific and intelligible, or else must become so as a result of discussion. Thus the point is not so much that the idea of "whirlpower" originated in a dream, but that it still retains that vague, dreamlike quality at present, and our attempts to persuade Mr. Dennard to clarify his idea have proved fruitless. As a result, further discussion seems to be a waste of time. Bottom line: vague and nebulous ideas whose proponents persistently resist clarification become, for that reason alone, off topic. --Mitchell Jones}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 28 17:34:40 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA18352; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 17:32:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 17:32:15 -0700 Message-ID: <01db01bdeb40$625342e0$ba98a8cf hh2152186.www.surfsouth.com> From: "Bill Wallace" To: Subject: Re: probe this Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 20:30:36 -0400 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: <"aSUQo2.0.AU4.Cg24s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22813 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > > Had this wonderful dream going though. 8^) > >Me too! It REALLY happened to me, NO REALLY! > >We were trying measure the whirlpower energy in this big heated whirlpool >of water by sitting in it with little flowmeters attached to our skin. >Donna D'Errico had come over from Baywatch to help out as my lab assistant. >I am happy to report that the system was WAY overunity! No way she was helping you, you were dreaming, I had her for REAL! The overunity effect was fake though, all critical functions failed after 5 minutes. By then I no longer cared (grin) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 28 18:33:38 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA12707; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 18:31:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 18:31:03 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 15:29:47 -1000 To: Vortex-L From: Rick Monteverde Subject: "Whirlpower" - last call! Resent-Message-ID: <"0TERf2.0.E63.MX34s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22814 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: David - After reading your answers to the questions I posed, I'd like to make the following comments, and then END any further discussion about this on my part. I've been getting mail about my participation in this thread, and Mitchell Jones says it right: > Thus the point is not so much that the idea > of "whirlpower" originated in a dream, but > that it still retains that vague, dreamlike > quality at present, and our attempts to > persuade Mr. Dennard to clarify his idea > have proved fruitless. As a result, further > discussion seems to be a waste of time. > Bottom line: vague and nebulous ideas whose > proponents persistently resist clarification > become, for that reason alone, off topic. You might want to look at the material on the late Prof. Laithwaite's notions on gyros. He thought there was "something wrong" with them. Harold Apsden and others seem to agree, and I don't think this has ever been resolved. If you're not familiar with these, do a web search and read up. I don't want to discourage you on your quest, but I do want to discourage you regarding continuing this thread here. The conclusion here is that you're dreaming and there's no excess energy to be tapped from a gyro/vortex/whatever, and that your vague and nonspecific claims don't lend themselves to any reasonable discussion on the subject. You may deny that this conclusion regarding your ideas is correct, but I'm out of this one as of now. Our posts on this are off-topic and unwanted on this list. I hope you will respond by finishing with this discussion here yourself. You now have the last word. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 28 18:55:52 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA20348; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 18:52:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 18:52:59 -0700 Message-ID: <011001bdeb4b$ef8cd260$96b4bfa8 default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Cc: "George" Subject: Re; Internal Heat From Jupiter and Saturn Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 19:52:36 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Resent-Message-ID: <"DTuLb3.0.oz4.xr34s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22815 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex The heat from Jupiter (78% Hydrogen)is 1.668 times the heat it receives from the Sun. Saturn's "internal heat source is comparable to that of Jupiter and not attributable to Gravitational Heating". Some Really Cold Fusion/ZPE Extraction here? :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 28 19:45:29 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA09949; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 19:43:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 19:43:47 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980928224413.008a4a60 inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney inforamp.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 22:44:13 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: Re; Internal Heat From Jupiter and Saturn In-Reply-To: <011001bdeb4b$ef8cd260$96b4bfa8 default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"UbWcZ1.0.MR2.Yb44s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22816 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 07:52 PM 09/28/98 -0600, Frederick wrote: >To: Vortex > >The heat from Jupiter (78% Hydrogen)is 1.668 times the heat it receives from >the Sun. > >Saturn's "internal heat source is comparable to that of Jupiter and not >attributable to Gravitational Heating". > >Some Really Cold Fusion/ZPE Extraction here? :-) > Hi Fred, What was your info source? Did it perchance, have a take on any of the other planets' heat ratios? What about Earth? What is our heat I-O ratio? I assume it is 1:1, but has anyone actually calculated or measured it?. Regards, Colin Quinney From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 28 21:36:17 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA25974; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 21:34:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 21:34:40 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 23:44:53 -0600 To: From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Near the Eye of the Storm (Vortex) Resent-Message-ID: <"A8FYh.0.kL6.WD64s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22817 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Well, to sum it all up: New Orleans was a very lucky city. But the Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida Gulf coast areas were not so lucky. As of Saturday evening, the National Weather Service and most local weathercasts were predicting Hurricane Georges' landfall at or very near to New Orleans. New Orleans averages three feet below sea level. The City is somewhat bowl-shaped, with the Mississippi River to the south of the main area of the city (further south is the Gulf of Mexico), and to the north is Lake Pontchartrain. To the east is more Gulf shoreline and smaller lakes. Swamps are to the west. For all practical purposes, the City is an island -- a below sea-level island at that. We are told that New Orleans has the most sophisticated pumping system in the world -- engineers from overseas often visit our city to observe our pumping stations. However, these stations have their limits in terms of "inches" of fallen water that they can pump per hour. I understand they can pump out 2 inches of rain in the first two hours and 1/2 inch of rain per hour after that. The problem is that the rainwater is pumped from the streets of the City out into the lake to the north of the City. But the hurricane threatened to drive lake water into the City from the north and Mississippi River water would be driver UPriver by the storm surge. While the City does have a levee protection operation, this levee system can work to KEEP the water IN as well as out if the rainfall becomes too heavy for the pumps to handle. Our famous "once-in-a-century" May flood of several years ago (we've had several such "once-in-a-century" rain-floods in the past several years) exceeded 14 inches of rain within a 24-hour period in some areas of the City!! I recall attempting to move my automobile to higher ground at the height of one of those rain storms -- and I can truthfully say that the "density" of the rainfall was SO intense, that one had a difficult time finding air to breathe "between the raindrops"! Anyway, the City feared the worst: as Hurricane George approached the mouth of the Mississippi River, the water would be driven UPriver and all surrounding lakes would dump overflow water into the City PLUS excessive rainfall predicted from the Hurricane carrying heavy moisture-laden water from the Gulf of Mexico. Tens of thousands of New Orleanians had fled the City over the past several days --- the interstate system was reported to be a 25-plus mile traffic jam as people fled east, north, and west. Unfortunately many fled to Hattiesburg, Mississippi which, as it turned out, lay directly in the path of the storm. The Louisiana Superdome and the New Orleans Convention Center were turned into makeshift shelters at the last minute. Over 13,000 people fled to the Superdome for shelter. Anyway, Saturday evening the "dean" of weathermen -- Nash Roberts -- came on television (the same station which my friend, engineer Ralph Hartwell works for, BTW). I can remember the hand-drawn, primitive-by-today's-standard graphics of weatherman Nash Roberts back in the 1950s --- and he was considered a middle-aged man THEN. Nash must be in his 80s now, and he rarely makes a TV appearance anymore. Nash Roberts has accurately predicted the correct path of so many hurricanes over the decades, that many New Orleanians' sets of eyes were on his latest weather report, the results of which could imply so much to the immediate welfare of the City. Using the same, primitive hand-drawn map of the Gulf and area around New Orleans, Nash was (to my knowledge) the FIRST person to publicly predict that the hurricane appeared to be ever-so-slightly jogging to the North -- it had been on a relentless Northwest path headed directly for New Orleans. Because the vortex action of the Hurricane causes it to continually vibrate and jog from side to side as it moves, the precise prediction of direction and final landfall is difficult, even when studying multiple satellite images. But Nash Roberts said that the Hurricane would probably landfall along the Mississippi Gulf Coast and just miss New Orleans by landing slightly to the East. As it turned out, he was right. By about 60 miles, New Orleans escaped disaster. The City still received high winds; the lakefront did suffer wave and area flooding; many lakeshore restaurants/homes were severely damaged; a number of stately 100+ year-old live oak trees were uprooted along St. Charles Avenue in the heart of the Crescent City --- and are "live" no more. Power outages have been reported across the City. But the damage is slight by comparison if the storm had scored a direct hit on the City. Flood estimates from this scenario were estimated between 3-8 FEET depending upon the section of the City. So, we escaped the worst. The Gulf Coast was not so lucky. Although they are on higher ground than our City, areas around Mobile Bay reported over 15 INCHES of rainfall within a 24 hour period. This does not include swollen rivers from inland rainfall as the storm dumps Gulf water in central Mississippi and Alabama. ************* Personal note: After helping my parents blackjack around the base of their chimney and seal up their windows, sandbag doors, move damageables to higher levels, etc., I assisted my neighbors in the apartment building where I live move outdoor furniture and potted plants indoors. My own windows were then taped up, supplies were stocked, and I was prepared for the worst. At about 8:30pm Saturday night I sat back to watch TV and awaited the coming of the storm. Things seemed pretty well under control. BUT..... just at that moment, first a single stream, then another, then another, then DOZENS of rivulets of water began cascading from my ceiling across my living and dining room areas!!! It seems that my neighbor above had decided to fill his bathtub with water (as back up water in case the City's water system broke down) and he FORGOT(!) about the bathtub! Since his tub has no over-flow drain, and the marble tiling on the floor of his bathroom has no caulking, the overflow dutifully obeyed the Law of Gravitation and sought _lower_ ground: my apartment! I was running about like the proverbial "chicken" trying to sop up the constantly appearing ceiling leaks with every available container .... but, since it soon appeared hopeless and totally out-of-control, I ran upstairs to his 5th Floor penthouse apartment and banged on his door. He was oblivious to the problem! My apartment quickly became a "tropical RAINforest" sans wildlife (not counting the mold that will probably form under my wall-to-wall carpting!) To give you an idea of the extent of the "waterfall": I'm on the FOURTH floor. My neighbor on the FIRST floor beneath me (as well those living on the SECOND and THIRD floors) suffered extensive water damages. While two friends staying with my upstairs 'neighbor' were kind enough to bring down towels and blankets and helped to sop up the waterfall, the 'neighbor' himself would not come down (according to his two friends) and would not talk on the telephone. At this point my living/dining areas/furniture/walls are a mess, and the carpet is slowly drying out. I bring up this personal "experience" for its irony: I was spared the wrath of the hurricane but fell victim to an upstairs neighbor! Good olde Murphy of Murphy's Law fame --- when you least expect him, he WILL strike! Moral of the story: "Expect the worst. And if it doesn't happen, something else from left field can come along and still catch you by surprise!" **************** Your water-soaked 'reporter' from the Big Easy......home to jazz, jambalaya, and cajun mudbugs --- Laissez faire les bon temps roule'..... Evan Soule' :-) What did the fish say when he hit a concrete wall? "Dam". From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 28 22:09:53 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA06608; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 22:09:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 22:09:03 -0700 Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 23:10:50 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november Reply-To: Steve Ekwall To: Vortex-L Subject: Re: "Whirlpower" - last call! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"6oovR.0.zc1.kj64s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22818 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 28 Sep 1998, you wrote: David - After reading your answers to the questions I posed, I'd like to make the following comments, and then END any further discussion about this on my part. I've been getting mail about my participation in this thread, *ouch* -snip- The conclusion here is that you're dreaming and there's no excess energy to be tapped from a gyro/vortex/whatever, and that your vague and nonspecific claims don't lend themselves to any reasonable discussion on the subject. -snip- - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI ----------------------------------- Hi Vo's, Thinking Whirlpower/Whirlpool & vortexs [not TOPS on a turn-table:]: David's page http://www.ledomesprite.com/domeworld/whirlpower.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 00:59:49 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA10794; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 00:57:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 00:57:29 -0700 Message-ID: <012901bdeb7e$da04db80$96b4bfa8 default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Cc: "George" Subject: Re: Re; Internal Heat From Jupiter and Saturn Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 01:57:11 -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: <"ssSJs3.0.ae2.eB94s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22819 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Quinney To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Monday, September 28, 1998 8:46 PM Subject: Re: Re; Internal Heat From Jupiter and Saturn Colin Quinney wrote: >At 07:52 PM 09/28/98 -0600, Frederick wrote: >>To: Vortex >> >>The heat from Jupiter (78% Hydrogen)is 1.668 times the heat it receives from >>the Sun. >> >>Saturn's "internal heat source is comparable to that of Jupiter and not >>attributable to Gravitational Heating". >> >>Some Really Cold Fusion/ZPE Extraction here? :-) >> > > >Hi Fred, > >What was your info source? Did it perchance, have a take on any of the >other planets' heat ratios? Yes, The info was from my McGraw-Hill Multimedia Encyclopedia of Science and Technology CD. :-) > >What about Earth? What is our heat I-O ratio? I assume it is 1:1, but has >anyone actually calculated or measured it?. It was given also. Interestingly the Solar heat output was also given as 1.93E-4 watts/Kg. One might go there at night when its cool to see what it drops to. :-) Regards, Frederick > >Regards, >Colin Quinney > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 01:11:36 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA13822; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 01:10:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 01:10:55 -0700 Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 01:12:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809290812.BAA20832 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: what is VORTEX-L for? Resent-Message-ID: <"Kjbzl2.0.tN3.FO94s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22820 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Willaim, I will respond to you first. You wrote; > > There is a considerable amount of semi-on-topic discussion and totally > off-topic discussion here. But the main topic is something like this: "I > built some hardware which seems to violate current theories. I've tested > it exhaustively and cannot find any conventional explanation for my > results. Let's discuss my findings, help me find flaws in my work, and > perhaps build replicas for independent testing." At Vortex World in Sweden there has been a test of principle model built, as I have mentioned. When they heard of my theory proposal they quickly confirmed something they saw in their tests, something that was going on previously overlooked and unexplained. In a water cleaning devise prototype they made they noted a wave action unbefore seen. They told me at the time they had no idea of what they were looking at and it was my theory that raised attention. Now this prototype was not built to test Whirlpower Theory, but it is an actual built machine, or was. The machine is now being reconstructed along the lines of Whirlpower Theory for further tests. You can click on the links page and see the Whirlpower Theory addition. You can see this machine concept at > The further the conversation wanders from the above, the less "on-topic" > it is. "Vortex" is simply the title of the very first discussion topic: > the Griggs overunity device. The title of the list is a sort of > arbitrary tradition. Also, this list sucks widely separated researchers > into a small, intense, turbulent discussion, which hopefully generates > more results than the simple conversion of initial motion into hot air. > It occasionally strips all the feathers off of chickens, and rams wheat > straws through the trunks of trees. :) And as I have show, new vortex informaion that says just in the past year almost everything that science thought about the vortex was wrong. And as shown dramatic and new simple understanding about the tornado that scientists here don't understand. > > Speculations about whirlpools seen in a dream are not on-topic. I have given this list much more than just speculation from a dream. I have given graphic detail ( and excellent moving graphics from a scientific professional) how this very simple idea has not been tested in any form when it would seem to any with any curiosity at all as a "huge exploration gap". Somebody should be able to report someone building a whirlpool and testing the power. We have many reports of people, many people, testing the vortex. And that with all the supposed know gyroscopic evidence, no one can report any data of a top being spun on a turntable, which would seem to be one of the most likely things to try! Does not anyone see this? So I am at a lose to see the lack of couriosity by this list. This said, there have been a number of people expressing interest on what I am saying and I am getting private mail saying the same thing. People are interested. However, > if your dreams inspire you to BUILD a self-acting whirlpool generator, and > if your device should actually exhibit some unexpected phenomena, then > discussions of it are completely on-topic. Test of principle model has been built and does exhibit unexpected phenomena. Curt is in France for the next few days and he is working on a full Whirlpower section that he says will be on line soon. He is not some dreamer but a fully recognized professional in vortex and a member of the Swedish New Physics Association. He is connected directly to the Schauberger family and has confirmed Whirlpower as a new but similar theory concerning the vortex work of Viktor Schauberger. They are the experts on vortex physics. Now if this list wants to override the expressed interests of several people on this list that agree my theory looks as if it has just as much potential as any that have appeared here there is nothing I can do and I will go on to the next list. There are many still to check in this arena. The Inquisition told Galileo to shut up. He would not, so they imprisoned him and excommunicated him saying he was never to speak that the Earth moved again. I hope this list is not that narrow minded. David Dennard From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 01:58:47 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA21989; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 01:57:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 01:57:59 -0700 Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 01:59:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809290859.BAA21758 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: "Whirlpower" - last call! Resent-Message-ID: <"o2z9s.0.TN5.L4A4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22821 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Steve, Thank you again for you positive outlook. You wrote: > > Hi Vo's, > Thinking Whirlpower/Whirlpool & vortexs [not TOPS on a turn-table:]: Yes it seems that might have been "too much information" for this list to digest. > David's page http://www.ledomesprite.com/domeworld/whirlpower.html > With a liquid "vortex" in the very heart of this system, and the sides > of the water swirling higher and higher (push or pull gravity), I would > think anyone would agree that not only is a potential KE, but flow > available that must come down and settle (level). I know each gallon has > much weight, and I know gravity is keeping DOWN it in the tub! :) Actually it is the wobble of the vortex, the wiggle, the Fire of the Kundalini, that drags the water in the donut. > So, I think if not this list, then where? for a vortex centered > apparatus > that shows huge OU if only for a while, till we're all wet ;), we've been > there before -ya? That this is not on topic or thought to be not on topic is a mystery to me also. I don't see how this can be said. I don't see why there is not extream curiosity here for this. > Does anyone see any trouble with a device that would have to be started > by hand-cranking (stirring as it were) (like an ~old Model T crank > automobile engine?), instead of using batteries/AC etc? Granted it could > never be PM as you'd always have evaporation of the water, and would > always have to add more. (mass) constantly, so it breaks no laws. And as the Department of Energy has just recenty stated, ZPE is viable and not in violation of the laws of physics. The only thing I have seen in violation of the laws of physics is the standard that the Moon is riding on its own self generated tidal wave and that the wobble of the Earth is not even in the equation of the the motion of the Moon. Could it be that accepted science is based on perpetual motion, while all along they have judged my theory to be perpetual motion? In the future history will judge that this is even more absurd that science once thinking the Earth was the center of the Solar System? Because back then they had no way to make a conclusive test. Today a conclusive test would be very simple to do, both mathmatically and with a prototype. Few in science today would go to the trouble of make a prototype of something so simple without at least doing the basic math first. I would make a prototype but I have no resourses to do so. I don't think it will be quite as simple as Steve thinks but is is very simple and will not cost millions to find out, or even many thousands. From my prototype building experience, I have made a few, and I have a couple of patents, I have found even simple projects can get very expensive and out of my range very quickly. A Whirlpower prototype or Tip Top (Neutron Star) prototype will need a little more than an old washtub or old record player to find out. David Dennard From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 04:00:19 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA08502; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 03:59:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 03:59:29 -0700 Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 04:00:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809291100.EAA23706 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: what is VORTEX-L for? Resent-Message-ID: <"IpCd71.0.f42.GsB4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22822 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robin, I see your opinion on this list as the fulcrum, you seem to have weighed the information fairly and evenly. You wrote; > > IMO David is no more off topic than many other speculative items that > have been posted here before, most of my own included, and in fact > probably more on topic than most. Where he got his idea is irrelevant. That is what I think too. It is becaues my challenge is so bold and simple that an even hand is not being applied by some. I have seen this on all the lists I have visited so far and but here has always been a minority of support and a person on the fulcrum line such as yourself that has kept things in balance. The way I read the vote of the jury, so far it is in my favor, but I will wait and see. > What counts is whether or not it is viable. David has already pointed > out that he has difficulty with practical experiments, and certainly > has a more valid reason than I do for not carrying them out. > (Though I expect that a toy top on an old turntable should not be > beyond his ability to arrange). This might be possible but it may also be like trying to hammer a nail with a screwdriver. Might work but not the right tool for the job. > > As to dreams, it is told that Kekule got the structure of benzene from > a dream. The subconscious is a powerful tool. And Einstein said a thought is worth much more than any machine. Tesla said one day man would connect his machinery to the very wheelwork of nature. Thank you again Robin for standing up for this poor insignicant dreamer. Some interesting stuff from the Washington Post relating to frame dragging research. "A black hole can be detected by the fireworks around its dark maw when for example, it gobbles material drawn to it from a nearby star. In this region, gas-which the scientists compared to an unrully crowd jamming a stadium entrance-gets hotter and hotter as it spirals in, giving off radiowaves, visible light and-just before it disappears-high-energy X-rays." "Measurements of those X-rays had enabeled the team, earlier this year (1997), to produce the first published calculations of a black hole's spin rate. With that, plus the mass of the black hole, the team could then predict exactly how frame dragging should effect the surrounding gas. The timing of the X-ray signals indicated that the spin axis of the orbiting gas was wobbling like a child's top as it slows down its spin and begins to teeter in all directions." Me again, so here we see something of what I have been saying. Kathy Sawyer goes on to report; "They calculated this motion, known as precession, was far greater than a simple mathmatical effect could explain." Me again, this is gravitational ZPE. There is much more to come if this list decides to actualy discuss this most interesting subject. But it is not my wish to be any where I am not wanted. I have many more lists to check out and don't want to waste mine or anyone's time. I hope you will all check out the Whirlpower page, Dutch Physicist Edward Maesen did a great job there for me completely free of charge. I have a feeling some have not even bothered to look, and I hope you will check out the Swedish site. If it is deemed by those who do not want to discuss this and the list agrees I am more than ready to go on to the next list. But there is enough support here for me to continue to stand up and express myself to the best of my ability and I will continue "against all odds" as long as there is this much support here. I hope some of the people that have expressed support privately will speak up. What could be more important than finding a clean low tech energy source for this planet? David Dennard From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 06:23:37 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA15606; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 06:22:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 06:22:09 -0700 Comments: ( Received on ftpbox.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com ) Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com Message-ID: <3610DF4E.E4B05768 css.mot.com> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 08:23:26 -0500 From: John Steck Organization: Motorola PCS - Rapid Tooling Applications X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Discussion Group - Vortex Subject: Re: what is VORTEX-L for? References: <199809291100.EAA23706 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"koqkr3.0.lp3.1yD4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22823 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: David Dennard wrote: > Thank you again Robin for standing up for this poor insignicant dreamer. Do not confuse "once bitten twice shy" with lack of interest or frustration with antagonism. As much as you want us to suspend judgement, most of us want to give you the benefit of doubt. Ultimately something more substantial than just debate is needed to verify or disprove your theory. That is all we are looking for. Give us some hard data to chew on and there will be more discussion here than you ever thought possible. Just my perspective. I can't speak for everyone. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John E. Steck Senior Mechanical Engineer Rapid Tooling Applications Motorola, Libertyville, IL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Who watches the watchmen?" - The Comedian From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 06:42:12 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA22899; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 06:41:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 06:41:13 -0700 Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 09:40:23 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: [OFF TOPIC] Superconductivity uses? Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809290942_MC2-5B08-3D2 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"NpZbR.0.eb5.vDE4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22824 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex As far as I know, superconductors have limited commercial value. Superconductivity was discovered in 1911, but no practical use for it was found until the mid 1960s. The Josephson effect was discovered in 1962 (by Josephson, as it happens). This was used to make high-sensitivity measurements of currents, voltages, and magnetic fields. High temperature superconductivity was discovered in 1986 but so far it has only been used to replace low temperature devices in established applications. Are there other commercial or large-scale scientific uses for superconductors? There were plans to use them on the superconducting supercollider. Do any existing colliders employ them? A great deal of research is now being done on HTSC, but so far problems have stymied commercialization. These include "brittleness, instabilities of the materials in some chemical environments, and a tendency for impurities to segregate at surfaces and grain boundaries" (Britannica). - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 07:12:31 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA02026; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 07:10:45 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 07:10:45 -0700 Message-ID: <015901bdebb2$fd2972e0$96b4bfa8 default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Cc: "George" Subject: Re: Anti-Stokes and "Inverse" Compton Effect, ZPE Connection? Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 08:10:55 -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: <"5yT9G.0.XV.YfE4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22825 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex In Raman Spectroscopy the Anti-Stokes lines persist down to near absolute zero. Figures. :-) In Compton Scattering, is ALL of the frequency shift of the incident photon and the momentum of the recoiling electron accounted for? Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 07:29:04 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA08343; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 07:27:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 07:27:21 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980929102828.006fde94 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:28:28 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Superconductivity uses? In-Reply-To: <199809290942_MC2-5B08-3D2 compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"LEuRV2.0.G22.8vE4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22826 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 09:40 AM 9/29/98 -0400, Jed wrote: >To: Vortex > >As far as I know, superconductors have limited commercial value. >Superconductivity was discovered in 1911, but no practical use for it was >found until the mid 1960s..... >Are there other commercial or large-scale scientific uses for superconductors? Linear induction machines, i.e. trains. Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 07:46:59 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA14462; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 07:42:45 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 07:42:45 -0700 Message-ID: <016a01bdebb7$76d5af60$96b4bfa8 default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Cc: "George" Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Superconductivity uses? Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 08:42:58 -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: <"np_gh.0.uX3.b7F4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22827 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Mitchell Swartz To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 8:29 AM Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Superconductivity uses? Mitchell Swartz wrote: >At 09:40 AM 9/29/98 -0400, Jed wrote: >>To: Vortex >> >>As far as I know, superconductors have limited commercial value. >>Superconductivity was discovered in 1911, but no practical use for it was >>found until the mid 1960s..... > >>Are there other commercial or large-scale scientific uses for >superconductors? > > Linear induction machines, i.e. trains. Yes! The Conductor on the Santa Fe Railroad SUPER CHIEF was the "Super Conductor". I was just waiting for that one. :-) Regards, Frederick > > Mitchell Swartz > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 07:57:36 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA21569; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 07:55:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 07:55:23 -0700 Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:54:04 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Superconductivity uses? Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809291056_MC2-5B04-DCD2 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"o4sAY.0.sG5.RJF4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22828 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Mitchell Swartz writes: "Linear induction machines, i.e. trains." That's a potential application. I meant: are there any other commercial or large-scale scientific applications already implemented? As far as I know, there are no linear induction (maglev) trains in actual use. There is no industrial production of HTSC yet because of the problems cited by Britannica. Correct? - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 08:27:53 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA05284; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 08:25:14 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 08:25:14 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980929112629.00c73bc0 spectre.mitre.org> X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 11:26:29 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Robert I. Eachus" Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Superconductivity uses? In-Reply-To: <199809290942_MC2-5B08-3D2 compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"wiQbh3.0.QI1.QlF4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22829 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 09:40 AM 9/29/98 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: >Are there other commercial or large-scale scientific uses for superconductors? >There were plans to use them on the superconducting supercollider. Do any >existing colliders employ them? A great deal of research is now being done on >HTSC, but so far problems have stymied commercialization. These include >"brittleness, instabilities of the materials in some chemical environments, >and a tendency for impurities to segregate at surfaces and grain boundaries" >(Britannica). SQUIDs (sometimes SQIDs), Superconducting quantum interference devices. They are extremely sensitive detectors of magnetic fields and are used for things like non-intrusively detecting brain waves. SQUIDs that had to be cooled with liquid Helium were very difficult to use (remember, you have to shield the pumps, etc. from the sensors, and the sensors can be contain in metal dewars. HTSC SQUIDs are much easier to use. 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 Sep 29 08:28:09 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA05471; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 08:25:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 08:25:30 -0700 From: John Logajan Message-Id: <199809291526.KAA11041 mirage.skypoint.com> Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Superconductivity uses? In-Reply-To: <199809290942_MC2-5B08-3D2 compuserve.com> from Jed Rothwell at "Sep 29, 98 09:40:23 am" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:26:44 -0500 (CDT) 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: <"NcLTv2.0.CL1.elF4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22830 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed wrote: > As far as I know, superconductors have limited commercial value. Applications are limited because of cost and environmental requirements. Low cost room temperature superconductors, on the other hand, would be used extensively in all electric motor designs and transformers, not to mention electrical power transmission lines -- in short, any place where electrical power transmission or electromagnetic power is used today. And that is an economically vast area. Another area would potentially be faster digital chips, since one of the limiting factors is RC time constants for charging parasitic capacitance. Reduce R to near zero and the time constant drops to near zero too. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 651-633-8928 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 08:45:21 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA14063; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 08:42:26 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 08:42:26 -0700 X-Sender: wharton 128.183.200.226 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 11:43:35 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Negative viscosity paper submitted Resent-Message-ID: <"NjHLr2.0.fR3.Y_F4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22831 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I have submitted my latest paper on negative viscosity in a turbulent fluid. The most significant effect results from rotation. There are two processes involved. The rotation can cause heat flow in the direction of the velocity of rotation and this heat flow can then react with the momentum balance to cause negative viscosity. Scientists in the field are 100% ignorant of both of these effects and in order to limit the amount of new information (and hence the problems with reviewers) I concentrated on the effect of rotation on heat flow. This type of heat flow is essential for the generating of negative viscosity and the fist step will be to establish its existence. A popular summary follows: HelveticaRotational corrections for eddy viscosity and heat conductionTimes HelveticaLawrence E. WhartonTimes HelveticaPopular SummaryTimes TimesTurbulent transport of momentum and heat, sometimes called eddy transport, refers to the movement of heat or momentum caused by fluid mixing and fluctuations. If a tub was filled with cold water and then with hot water at one end, there would be heat concentrated at the hot end of the tub. If the water was then mixed, the heat would be equalized and there would be a net movement of heat from the hot end to the cold end. This would be an example of eddy heat transport. An analogous example of eddy momentum transport would be an area of water with momentum or motion at one end and no motion at the other end. If the water was mixed up then the motion would also equalize and some of the motion would be moved from the moving end to the non moving end. This turbulent transport involves fluid motions and in a rotating fluid those motions are affected by the Coriolis Force. The effect of rotation of the fluid or gas on this eddy transport has been calculated and a significant modification due to the Coriolis Force has been found. The flow of water in the Mississippi River is sometimes given as an example of the effect of the Coriolis force. As the water flows from North to South, the rotation of the Earth causes the flow to move over to the West bank. If some hot water was dumped in the middle of the Mississippi River, this Coriolis force would cause it to move over toward the West bank. So while the river current is transporting the hot water from North to South, the Coriolis force causes it also to move to the West. This extra movement of heat to the West is an example of the rotational correction for heat transport. One result from the rotational correction to the heat transport is that it may interact with the momentum transport to cause a phenomena known as "negative viscosity". Normal viscosity acts to slow down fluid motions but "negative viscosity" has the opposite effect and actually acts to speed up fluid motions. If a bucket were filled with rotating water then the water would slow down in time due to the effects of normal viscosity. Negative viscosity would force the water to continue rotating, contrary to our experience with normal viscosity. In the late 1960's the belief evolved, lead by prominent meteorologists E. N. Lorentz and V. P. Starr, that negative viscosity was responsible for maintaining rotating structures in the Earth's atmosphere such as high and low pressure systems and the overall atmospheric rotation. Later, with the advent of computers, the negative viscosity concept was abandoned and replaced with artificial rigging of computer atmospheric models. This may have been a mistake as negative viscosity may actually exist. It could be useful in understanding rotating atmospheric structures and it could be applied to the development of improved mechanical devices such as jet engines. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 08:51:52 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA16995; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 08:50:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 08:50:07 -0700 Comments: ( Received on ftpbox.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com ) Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com Message-ID: <361101FA.4E6C94B1 css.mot.com> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:51:22 -0500 From: John Steck Organization: Motorola PCS - Rapid Tooling Applications X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Negative viscosity paper submitted References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"nwYgE1.0.994.j6G4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22832 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Larry Wharton wrote: > I have submitted my latest paper on negative viscosity in a turbulent fluid. Hi Larry! Is your paper available online? If not, can you email me a copy? Thanks! -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John E. Steck Senior Mechanical Engineer Rapid Tooling Applications Motorola, Libertyville, IL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Who watches the watchmen?" - The Comedian From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 09:12:52 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA25982; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 09:11:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 09:11:25 -0700 Message-Id: <199809291612.LAA00798 smtp.jump.net> X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 11:11:24 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones) Subject: Re: Daytime vs. Nighttime Weight Resent-Message-ID: <"ohf5P1.0.sL6.iQG4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22833 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >At 12:23 PM 9/28/98 -0600, Mitchell Jones wrote: >>Bottom line: there is no difference between daytime and nighttime weight >>due to either of these influences and, hence, there is no difference >>between daytime and nighttime weight. > > Huh? Think about tides. What happens is that the gravitational >attraction of the sun is exactly counterbalanced by the centripetal ***{Oops: you petaled when you should have fugaled. Robin is going to let you have it now! :-) --MJ}*** force >from the earth's orbit. (Actually it is only exactly balanced twice a >year, because the Earth's orbit is an ellipse.) At high noon you are >closer to the sun than the earth is on average, so you are more attracted >to the sun. ***{Imagine you ar standing on a highly accurate bathroom scale. At high noon you are closer to the sun than you will be at midnight, but so is the scale. Since solar gravity will accelerate you and the scale equally, it will not tend to pull you away from the scale at noon and press you down on it at midnight. Result: it will have no net effect whatever, and the scale will read the same at noon as it reads at midnight. --Mitchell Jones}*** Also the centripetal force on you is less than the average >force on the earth. ***{If you really mean "force," which I doubt, then you are obviously correct, but I fail to see your point. (Since the mass of the earth is vastly greater than your mass, and since F = ma, it follows that the centripetal force exerted by solar gravity on the earth is vastly greater than the centripetal force which it exerts on you.) --Mitchell Jones}*** At midnight, you are furthest from the sun, and the >centripetal force on you is higher than it is on the earth ***{If you really mean "force," which again I doubt, then the above statement is incorrect. (Once again, since the mass of the earth is vastly greater than your mass, and since F = ma, it follows that the centripetal force exerted by solar gravity on the earth is vastly greater than the centripetal force which it exerts on you.) Could it be that you really meant to say "acceleration" rather than "force?" --Mitchell Jones}*** , and of course >the sun is attracting you less than it is the earth. > > So at those two times your weight is less. ***{I'm not following your explanation, for the reasons noted above. That's not to say that your conclusion is wrong, of course. I get the impression that you are invoking some higher-order effect. If so, my main point in the post to which you responded was to correct the error in my earlier post, rather than to take some new and rigid position regarding daytime and nighttime weight. What I intended to say was that I was incorrect earlier, when I said that a person weighs less during the day and more at night. --Mitchell Jones}*** Of course the moon has a >greater net tidal force than the sun, so you will be at your lightest when >the sun and moon are overhead during a solar eclipse. (Or directly >underfoot, and during lunar eclipses as well, you get the picture.) > > When the sun and moon are together or at 180 degrees, the tides are >called spring tides, when the sun and moon are at 90 degrees, they are >called neap tides. In addition the strength of the tides varies with the >distance from earth to the moon. ***{I explicitly left the moon out of account in my analysis, because by varying its position in a continuous fashion over a month, it obviously does not influence daytime vs. nighttime weight in a consistent way. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > Robert I. Eachus > >with Standard_Disclaimer; >use Standard_Disclaimer; >function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... ***{I wrote the above annotations yesterday, but didn't post the message. I wanted to sleep on it, and see if I could figure out what you were trying to say. After reflection, here is my best guess: your point is that the center of mass of the earth is roughly 3950 miles beneath the center of mass of any person standing on the earth. Thus if a person is standing on the equator at noon, his center of mass is 3950 miles closer to the sun than is the center of mass of the earth, and the gravitational acceleration of the sun on him is slightly greater than the acceleration on the earth. Result: there is a tendency for the sun to lift him slightly more than the earth, and the reading of an accurate scale would therefore drop a bit, as compared to the case where the sun was not in the picture. If the person were standing at the same location at sunset or sunrise, on the other hand, his center of mass would be at the same distance from the sun as is the earth's center of mass, and thus the slight lift would be absent. And, finally, if he were standing at that location at midnight, the center of mass of the earth would be 3950 miles closer to the sun than his personal center of mass. Since the sun's acceleration on the earth under those circumstances would again be slightly greater than its acceleration on him, it would tend to pull the earth from beneath the scale he is standing on, and thus the scale would once again read less. Result: a person would weigh slightly less at noon, and slightly less at midnight, than he would weigh at dusk and at dawn. If that is what you were getting at, then your point is granted with no argument from me. Note, however, that unless some still higher order effect is invoked, the person will weigh the same at noon that he weighs at midnight, and, in general, will weigh the same when at equal distances from the noon meridian as from the midnight meridian. Bottom line: I would *not* characterize this pattern of differences as a difference between daytime and nighttime weight. The force you are talking about here is the force that gives rise to the tides. --Mitchell Jones}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 09:22:33 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA29613; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 09:19:14 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 09:19:14 -0700 Message-ID: <361108A5.CE89A249 bellsouth.net> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 12:19:49 -0400 From: Terry Blanton Reply-To: commengr bellsouth.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Superconductivity uses? References: <199809291056_MC2-5B04-DCD2 compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"xhX-_3.0.SE7.1YG4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22834 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > To: Vortex > > Mitchell Swartz writes: "Linear induction machines, i.e. trains." That's a > potential application. I meant: are there any other commercial or large-scale > scientific applications already implemented? As far as I know, there are no > linear induction (maglev) trains in actual use. There is no industrial > production of HTSC yet because of the problems cited by Britannica. > Correct? > > - Jed I understand there are applications for magnetic bearings (zero contact bearings). Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 09:34:56 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA02430; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 09:31:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 09:31:09 -0700 Message-ID: <019101bdebc6$7b032ea0$96b4bfa8 default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: "Quinney" Cc: "George" , Subject: Re: Anti-Stokes and "Inverse" Compton Effect, ZPE Connection? Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:26:46 -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: <"GFHBb1.0.tb.DjG4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22835 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Quinney To: Frederick J Sparber Date: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 9:13 AM Subject: Re: Anti-Stokes and "Inverse" Compton Effect, ZPE Connection? Hi Colin, You have a good memory. :-) The momentum of a photon of 1.0 micron or 1.24 ev (1.984E-19 joule) mc = E/c = h/lambda is 6.613E-28 kg-meters/sec. However, if the photon is absorped by a molecule of mass M and initial Kinetic Energy KEo, it picks up this momentum quantity, but now KE' = 1/2 Mv'^2 thus molecular momentum Mv' should be a lot more than the initial photon momentum E/c, thus there should be "Momentum Amplification" when a material (blackbody)absorbs photons. I tried this using a 150 watt IR heat lamp with several coatings of "lampblack" on the 4 inch diameter bulb face, but the thermal air currents confused the results indicating a good vacuum would be required. :-) In *theory* you should be able to coat a refractory sheet or foil with a radioisotope and with essentially no heat flow to the back, the thermal drag should create a thrust orders of magnitude better than the "Solar Sail". IOW. Heat flow (phonon drag/lattice vibrations) though a passive heat-conducting material is a form of heat engine? :-) Regards, Frederick ............................................... You wrote: >Hi Fred, > >Your post reminds me of one of your past posts about absorption of >infrared photon momentum within a medium. >Some type of material was transforming the photon energy to momentum, well >above normal light pressure. >The final calculation was 0.1 or 1.0 Newton per meter^2. Unfortunately I >recently accidentally erased all of my Vo posts. >Do you recall that post? It *may* have been prior to your acquisition of >your encyclopedia CD. > >I noticed at the time, that no one picked up on the topic. Very strange. >Do you still have that post in your "out" box? I'd like to learn more about >it. (Maybe re-post it to Vo.?) > >Thanks, >Colin Quinney >At 08:10 AM 09/29/98 -0600, you wrote: >>To: Vortex >> >>In Raman Spectroscopy the Anti-Stokes lines persist down to near absolute >>zero. Figures. :-) >> >>In Compton Scattering, is ALL of the frequency shift of the incident photon >>and the momentum >>of the recoiling electron accounted for? >> >>Regards, Frederick >> >> >> >> >> > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 09:43:04 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA06911; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 09:39:50 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 09:39:50 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980929124049.006fce58 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 12:40:49 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Superconductivity uses? In-Reply-To: <199809291056_MC2-5B04-DCD2 compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"dndTt3.0.dh1.LrG4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22836 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:54 AM 9/29/98 -0400, Jed wrote: >Mitchell Swartz writes: "Linear induction machines, i.e. trains." That's a >potential application. I meant: are there any other commercial or large-scale >scientific applications already implemented? As far as I know, there are no >linear induction (maglev) trains in actual use. There is no industrial >production of HTSC yet because of the problems cited by Britannica. >Correct? It is doubtful that much science can be learned by reading the Encyclopedia. It may be a 10 minute starting point, however. Nor can accuracy about what is going on be inferred either from the Encyclopedia (or the internet). For example, what does it say about cold fusion? QED Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 09:55:57 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA16748; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 09:53:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 09:53:23 -0700 Message-Id: <36111D0E.390CECF0 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 19:46:54 +0200 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; U) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Superconductivity uses? References: <016a01bdebb7$76d5af60$96b4bfa8 default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"eBwVd3.0.U54.22H4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22838 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frederick J Sparber wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mitchell Swartz > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Date: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 8:29 AM > Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Superconductivity uses? > > Mitchell Swartz wrote: > > >At 09:40 AM 9/29/98 -0400, Jed wrote: > >>To: Vortex > >> > >>As far as I know, superconductors have limited commercial value. > >>Superconductivity was discovered in 1911, but no practical use for it was > >>found until the mid 1960s..... > > > >>Are there other commercial or large-scale scientific uses for > >superconductors? > > > > Linear induction machines, i.e. trains. > > Yes! The Conductor on the Santa Fe Railroad SUPER CHIEF was the "Super > Conductor". I was just waiting for that one. :-) > > Regards, Frederick > > > > Mitchell Swartz > > > > > > Dont wait this to be happen. Trains will use ND magnets instead of SC, this was found far more practical than SC induced attracting magnetic fields. Nd perm magnets is based on repulsive scheme and naturally stabile. Even no energy may be required if some Nd magnet OU technology are applied to the system :). Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 09:56:41 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA12379; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 09:47:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 09:47:03 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980929124808.006fee38 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 12:48:08 -0400 To: commengr bellsouth.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Superconductivity uses? In-Reply-To: <361108A5.CE89A249 bellsouth.net> References: <199809291056_MC2-5B04-DCD2 compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"2GUwR1.0.y03.6yG4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22837 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:19 PM 9/29/98 -0400, Terry wrote: > >> Mitchell Swartz writes: "Linear induction machines, i.e. trains." That's a >> potential application. I meant: are there any other commercial or large-scale >> scientific applications already implemented? As far as I know, there are no >> linear induction (maglev) trains in actual use. There is no industrial >> production of HTSC yet because of the problems cited by Britannica. >> Correct? >> - Jed > >I understand there are applications for magnetic bearings (zero contact >bearings). >Terry Good point. The growing list would then include not only sensors, but the plethora of devices made by controlling hi-mu liquids (ferrofluids). ;-) Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 10:17:48 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA28612; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:13:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:13:10 -0700 From: mrb ap.net Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980929101532.007c3420 mail.ap.net> X-Sender: mrb mail.ap.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:15:32 -0700 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Superconductivity Markets In-Reply-To: <199809290942_MC2-5B08-3D2 compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====================_907114532==_" Resent-Message-ID: <"eYOh_1.0.--6.bKH4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22839 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: --=====================_907114532==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:40 AM 9/29/98 -0400, you wrote: >To: Vortex > >As far as I know, superconductors have limited commercial value. >Superconductivity was discovered in 1911, but no practical use for it was >found until the mid 1960s. The Josephson effect was discovered in 1962 (by >Josephson, as it happens). This was used to make high-sensitivity measurements >of currents, voltages, and magnetic fields. High temperature superconductivity >was discovered in 1986 but so far it has only been used to replace low >temperature devices in established applications. > >Are there other commercial or large-scale scientific uses for superconductors? >There were plans to use them on the superconducting supercollider. Do any >existing colliders employ them? A great deal of research is now being done on >HTSC, but so far problems have stymied commercialization. These include >"brittleness, instabilities of the materials in some chemical environments, >and a tendency for impurities to segregate at surfaces and grain boundaries" >(Britannica). > >- Jed > >Jed and Vortex The attached ASCII file is a summary of superconductor markets both present and projected. We do not wish publicity, but I have been monitoring vortex posts for some months and will be happy to share some information about our polymer room temperature superconductors with readers of this list. Our Landmark Patent 5,777,292, has issued and is available in full on the IBM website. Anyone interested in other than technical information should call me at 707 829-9391 or send a private e-mail. Mark Goldes, CEO, Room Temperature Superconductors Inc. > --=====================_907114532==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Markets.asc" SUPERCONDUCTOR MARKETS Several independent studies offer substantive illustration of anticipated markets for superconductors, and in one case (NIRI) the factored increase expected for room temperature superconductors. ISIS This study remains the United States Government's source document for superconductor market and applications projections. The International Superconductivity Industry Summit (ISIS) published the study "Worldwide Market Forecast for Superconductivity" at its 1993 conference in Japan. Its projections were reaffirmed in 1996. Their figures are based on present technology and its development and do not include commercialization at room temperature. It is the consensus of these 73 leading companies and experts in the field that the world market for products employing superconductors would grow as follows: 2000 2010 2020 Total System Sales ($ billions) 8-12 60-90 150-200 ISIS is thus predicting that the annual world market for products incorporating superconductors would grow to $150-200 billion by 2020. NIRI In 1987 the Nikkei Industrial Research Institute (NIRI) estimated that Japanese firms would produce products incorporating room temperature superconductors at a seven fold increase over liquid nitrogen superconductors, equalling $85.2 billion annually. "If superconductive ... chips can be applied to electric and electronic goods at room temperature, the impact will be far greater than one can imagine" the study said. VDC A very large application of superconductors is for power systems. A Venture Development Corporation (VDC) market analysis projects that the U.S. Power Quality market including Uninterruptible Power Systems (UPS) will grow at a compound annual rate of 13%, to reach more than $3 billion in 1999. Present Market Sales of products incorporating superconductors were estimated to total $7 billion in 1997. The most significant commercial application of superconductors has been as wire in the windings of powerful electromagnets (a worldwide 1996 total of $3 billion.) used in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) systems. The major players are General Electric, Westinghouse, Intermagnetics General, Sumitomo and Oxford Instruments. Small quantities of specialized superconducting electronic instrumentation are being produced for industry. These niche products, such as SQUID sensors for sensitive measurements of magnetic fields; wireless microwave and RF telecommunications components such as receivers and filters; and multi- chip modules, are presently addressed by less than a dozen small firms. --=====================_907114532==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" --=====================_907114532==_-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 11:47:19 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA05017; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 11:42:56 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 11:42:56 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com ) Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com Message-ID: <36112A74.53B0EC2C css.mot.com> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 13:44:04 -0500 From: John Steck Organization: Motorola PCS - Rapid Tooling Applications X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC <- NOT!] Superconductivity Markets References: <3.0.5.32.19980929101532.007c3420 mail.ap.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ZBYHL3.0.FE1.keI4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22840 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: mrb ap.net wrote: > Our Landmark Patent 5,777,292, has issued > and is available in full on the IBM website. Mark- Wow. You should not have lurked with this so long..... 8^) Thanks for bringing this to our attention. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John E. Steck Senior Mechanical Engineer Rapid Tooling Applications Motorola, Libertyville, IL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Who watches the watchmen?" - The Comedian From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 12:41:24 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA02717; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 12:39:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 12:39:22 -0700 Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 15:37:26 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Superconductivity Market Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809291540_MC2-5AFB-FADB compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"Rob4v1.0.Lg.fTJ4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22841 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Various people here summarized projected, future uses for superconductors (SC), like powerful electromagnets. That's all well and good, but I was wondering if any new products based on SC have been marketed since the mid 1960s, when "niche products, such as SQUID sensors" were introduced. I want to know whether HTSC have expanded range of products on the market or merely improved existing products. As far as I can tell from the literature, SQUIDs exist and the rest is still vaporware. HTSC has great potential, of course. But it has not been realized yet, despite billions of dollars of HTSC R&D. It is an interesting lesson for CF. Terry wrote: "I understand there are applications for magnetic bearings (zero contact bearings)." Is that a projected application, or something already on the market? Mitch Swartz writes: It is doubtful that much science can be learned by reading the Encyclopedia. It may be a 10 minute starting point, however. How helpful! Yes, I'll keep that in mind. Thanks. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 13:03:37 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA16272; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 13:01:19 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 13:01:19 -0700 From: "George Holz" To: Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Superconductivity Markets Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 16:08:04 -0400 Message-ID: <01bdebe4$ddc57ca0$0c6cd626 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: <"_bUuz1.0.0-3.DoJ4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22842 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mark Goldes mrb ap.net wrote: > Our Landmark Patent 5,777,292, has issued > and is available in full on the IBM website. John Steck wrote: Wow. You should not have lurked with this so long..... 8^) Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I want to second John in calling this patent to the attention of list members. I have been aware of this work for some time and have been waiting for Mark to make this development available for discussion on vortex. The coming availability of room temp. superconductors may have significant implications in making OU devices possible and practical. Regards, George Holz - george varisys.com Varitronics Systems From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 13:25:11 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA30764; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 13:23:43 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 13:23:43 -0700 Message-ID: <361141BC.DD0A550 bellsouth.net> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 16:23:24 -0400 From: Terry Blanton Reply-To: commengr bellsouth.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Superconductivity Market References: <199809291540_MC2-5AFB-FADB compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"hyTCq2.0.cW7.E7K4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22843 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > Terry wrote: "I understand there are applications for magnetic bearings (zero > contact bearings)." Is that a projected application, or something already on > the market? Mostly future applications; although, some current projects have made it out of the laboratory, eg 150,000 turbines. The most interesting I have seen in a while involves composite flywheels as energy storage devices. Check out: http://www.anl.gov/LabDB/Current/Ext/H458-text.001.html FLYWHEEL ENERGY STORAGE USING HTS MAGNETIC BEARINGS Keywords: applied superconductivity, flywheels, magnetic bearings Recent advances in the development of very low friction bearings and high-strength fiber composite rotor materials has revived interest in flywheel energy storage (FES). These advances enable efficient diurnal storage with high energy densities. A rotating permanent-magnet bearing assembly can be stably levitated above a stator component composed of high critical temperature -Tc superconductor (HTS) elements, without the need for position sensors and the elaborate feedback control systems required for conventional active electromagnetic bearings. Significant advances have been made at Argonne in developing very low friction magnetic bearings based on the unique levitation characteristics of HTS materials. Major accomplishments include an order of magnitude scale-up in HTS magnetic bearing size and demonstration of friction coefficients (æ < 10-6) more than 3 orders of magnitude better than the best commercial bearings. Potential applications for high-Tc superconducting magnetic bearings range from spacecraft gyroscopes to rotating electrical machinery to energy storage flywheels. Flywheels offer an attractive alternative to batteries in the development of zero-emission automotive power systems. On a larger scale, superconducting bearing/flywheel systems can be used for electric utility load leveling and for diurnal energy storage. A collaborative effort with Commonwealth Research Corporation is in progress to demonstrate that low loss HTS bearings can be scaled up to sizes of interest for FES applications. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 13:36:05 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA02438; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 13:32:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 13:32:33 -0700 Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 13:33:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809292033.NAA21719 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: what is VORTEX-L for? Resent-Message-ID: <"vXAST1.0.fb.WFK4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22844 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John says, > > Do not confuse "once bitten twice shy" with lack of interest or frustration > with > antagonism. As much as you want us to suspend judgement, most of us want to > give you the benefit of doubt. Ultimately something more substantial than > just > debate is needed to verify or disprove your theory. Agreed and that is why I am here, I need help, if I didn't need help I sure would not come here and ask for it. That is all we are > looking > for. I have given more than debate. I have given graphics and complete disclosure of the concept. I have shown the test of principle model in Sweden and their confirmation that they think Whirlpower is possible. Give us some hard data to chew on and there will be more discussion > here > than you ever thought possible. I came here to try and get hard data, not give it. If I had it I would not have needed to come here in the first place, nor would anyone with hard data. It seems to me you folks have it backwards. You want some one to come here and give it all to you, when what I see going on here is people coming here to ask for help in obtaining hard data. Then you just have a field day criticizing and patting yourselves on the back for being so mean. I will give this list one more chance since there are many here that have spoken in support of my idea, that see its simplicity and possibility. But I am not going to waste my time on a list that does not want to help. If I leave I invite those who are in support to stay in contact through my discussion board or website. But I am not inclined to give much further in a place that does not want to give back. David Dennard From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 14:32:01 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA28570; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 14:24:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 14:24:32 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com ) Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com Message-ID: <3611505D.E13DBF9C css.mot.com> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 16:25:49 -0500 From: John Steck Organization: Motorola PCS - Rapid Tooling Applications X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Discussion Group - Vortex Subject: Re: what is VORTEX-L for? References: <199809292033.NAA21719 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ggY-12.0.-z6.F0L4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22845 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: David Dennard wrote: > I will give this list one more chance since there are many here that have spoken > in support of my idea, that see its simplicity and possibility. But I am not > going to waste my time on a list that does not want to help. If I leave I > invite those who are in support to stay in contact through my discussion board > or website. > > But I am not inclined to give much further in a place that does not want to give > back. David- Please understand, each of us has our own agenda, priorities, and long lists of things to do. I don't subscribe to vortex-l to find things to do. I think your logic is faulty if you think anyone is sitting around here waiting for an idea. No matter how significant you think yours is, we already have our own favorites. If someone is working on something that I can offer assistance, I will. If it runs parallel to my efforts, my contributions are that much more profound. Vorts will help, but just like in school, you will have to do the homework yourself. I hope you at least lurk for a while before hanging up the subscription. Finding specific information sometimes takes time and patience. Sometimes it doesn't exist at all and requires someone to generate it. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John E. Steck Senior Mechanical Engineer Rapid Tooling Applications Motorola, Libertyville, IL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Who watches the watchmen?" - The Comedian From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 14:51:41 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA08285; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 14:49:26 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 14:49:26 -0700 Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 17:45:40 -0400 From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Superconductivity uses? Sender: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" Message-ID: <199809291749_MC2-5B06-ED77 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"b5ArE3.0.L12.bNL4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22846 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed wrote: >> As far as I know, there are no linear induction (maglev) trains in actual use. << There is at least 1 commercial Maglev in England that I know of, and that is at the National Exhibition Centre near Birmingham. It is completely automatic with no conductor or driver and runs between the rail-head or the airport and the Centre. I will be there in a few weeks at the Motor Show and will get some details. Norman From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 15:34:00 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA01721; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 15:32:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 15:32:11 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 14:38:30 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Negative viscosity paper submitted Resent-Message-ID: <"grYc62.0.hQ.g_L4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22847 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:43 AM 9/29/98, Larry Wharton wrote: [snip] > I have submitted my latest paper on negative viscosity in a turbulent >fluid. Good news Larry that you found time to publish your thoughts on this topic. Will there be a preprint available? [snip] >The flow of water in the Mississippi River is sometimes given as an example >of the effect of the Coriolis force. As the water flows from North to >South, the rotation of the Earth causes the flow to move over to the West >bank. If some hot water was dumped in the middle of the Mississippi River, >this Coriolis force would cause it to move over toward the West bank. [snip] I don't know if this is out of context and not relvant to your paper, but the hot water, being lighter, would actually tend to move toward the East bank due to the Coriolis force, true? The Coriolis force (an apparent force caused by simple inirtia) would be an apparent force moving the heavier water to the West thus displacing the lighter hot water to the East. Of course, if the river bank already follows an acceleration free path with repspect to latitudinal motion, due to historical erosion of the West bank, then there is no Coriolis force and the hot water would mix and disperse by other means because no velocity change relative to the cold water would be imparted by the Coriolis force. The hot water, by following the Coriolis force free path would, as you say, then be moving to the West. However, to the extent it moves to the west the subject Coriolis force diminishes. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 16:09:54 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA19353; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 16:08:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 16:08:41 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 15:15:03 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Anti-Stokes and "Inverse" Compton Effect, ZPE Connection? Resent-Message-ID: <"7C60O1.0.Ck4.uXM4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22848 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:26 AM 9/29/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote: [snip] > >The momentum of a photon of 1.0 micron or 1.24 ev (1.984E-19 joule) mc = E/c >= h/lambda is >6.613E-28 kg-meters/sec. > >However, if the photon is absorped by a molecule of mass M and initial >Kinetic Energy KEo, it picks up this momentum quantity, but now KE' = 1/2 >Mv'^2 thus molecular momentum Mv' should be a lot more than the initial >photon momentum E/c, thus there should be "Momentum Amplification" when a >material (blackbody)absorbs photons. [snip] The problem with this "Momentum Amplification" principle is that the absorber may be going in *any direction*. You may end up with momentum subtraction in some cases. The net result should conserve both energy and momentum. I would like to point out that the solar sail must work based mostly upon (solar emitted) particle momentum, not photon momentum. If only photons were involved the sail would be have to absorb about 2.94x10^9 watts per kg force by my calculation. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 17:25:32 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA17594; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 17:19:45 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 17:19:45 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 16:25:50 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Superconductivity Markets Resent-Message-ID: <"ZjeBb2.0.hI4.WaN4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22849 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:15 AM 9/29/98, mrb ap.net wrote: [snip] >We do not wish publicity, but I have been monitoring vortex posts for some >months and will be happy to share some information about our polymer room >temperature superconductors with readers of this list. Our Landmark Patent >5,777,292, has issued and is available in full on the IBM website. Anyone >interested in other than technical information should call me at 707 >829-9391 or send a private >e-mail. > >Mark Goldes, CEO, Room Temperature Superconductors Inc. Do you have a material for sale yet, say for prototyping or experimental purposes? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 18:03:26 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA12668; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 18:02:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 18:02:07 -0700 Message-ID: <007601bdec0d$faae5160$658f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Cc: "George" Subject: Re: Anti-Stokes and "Inverse" Compton Effect, ZPE Connection? Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 19:01:31 -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: <"lQ7dQ3.0.a53.FCO4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22850 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Horace Heffner To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 5:10 PM Subject: Re: Anti-Stokes and "Inverse" Compton Effect, ZPE Connection? Horace wrote: >At 10:26 AM 9/29/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote: >[snip] >> >>The momentum of a photon of 1.0 micron or 1.24 ev (1.984E-19 joule) mc = E/c >>= h/lambda is >>6.613E-28 kg-meters/sec. >> >>However, if the photon is absorbed by a molecule of mass M and initial >>Kinetic Energy KEo, it picks up this momentum quantity, but now KE' = 1/2 >>Mv'^2 thus molecular momentum Mv' should be a lot more than the initial >>photon momentum E/c, thus there should be "Momentum Amplification" when a >>material (blackbody)absorbs photons. >[snip] > > >The problem with this "Momentum Amplification" principle is that the >absorber may be going in *any direction*. You may end up with momentum >subtraction in some cases. The net result should conserve both energy and >momentum. Of Course. But, Heat Flow and Work play a different game, dW = Q*(dT/T) or: dW = dQ*(T1-T2)/T1 which says that heat flow through a heat conductor can *possibly* DO WORK "passively" with the right material and conditions. The best Ion Propulsion systems can get about a pound of thrust/100Kilowatts, with a helluva heavy and expensive system. IF you could get that down to 5 or 10 Kw/lb with a lightweight passive system.... :-) Go buy a 150 watt IR Heat Lamp and a can of black paint, coat the bulb carefully, you can use the bulb to fire the paint, put it in a vacuum chamber and see if it will develop some Phonon Drag, without the momentum cancellation you propose. You get conservation of energy/momentum IF IT MOVES in the direction of heat flow. > >I would like to point out that the solar sail must work based mostly upon >(solar emitted) particle momentum, not photon momentum. Wrong Horace. Alpha Particle or Fission sails work on particle momentum. If you tried to bring off Photo-Electrons only, the charge build-up would kill the thrust in seconds. Now if you could photo-eject neutral particles... The idea of Gossamer Thin reflective Solar Sails has been kicked around for decades. >If only photons >were involved the sail would be have to absorb about 2.94x10^9 watts per kg >force by my calculation. That sounds about right,1.0E-7 lb./ft^2. With a perfect reflector the force is double that of an absorber. The data I have for "Solar Sails" is about 4.89E-7 Kg/meter^2 or meter^2/kg "thrust",or about 2.45E9 watts/kg or 1.23E9 watts/kg for reflected photons. Regards, Frederick > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 18:37:11 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA30380; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 18:31:49 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 18:31:49 -0700 From: mrb ap.net Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980929183401.007bd1d0 mail.ap.net> X-Sender: mrb mail.ap.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 18:34:01 -0700 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Room Temperature Superconductor Samples In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"dwj981.0.AQ7.3eO4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22851 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 04:25 PM 9/29/98 -0800, you wrote: >At 10:15 AM 9/29/98, mrb ap.net wrote: >[snip] >>We do not wish publicity, but I have been monitoring vortex posts for some >>months and will be happy to share some information about our polymer room >>temperature superconductors with readers of this list. Our Landmark Patent >>5,777,292, has issued and is available in full on the IBM website. Anyone >>interested in other than technical information should call me at 707 >>829-9391 or send a private >>e-mail. >> >>Mark Goldes, CEO, Room Temperature Superconductors Inc. > > >Do you have a material for sale yet, say for prototyping or experimental >purposes? > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner > >Horace & vorts Material is not yet for sale. Samples are occasionally made available to government or corporate labs that have had an extensive tutorial on these Ultraconductors(tm). Thus far the polymers are usually thin films (typically 10 microns thick) with numerous (as many as 1 million per square centimeter)1 micron superconducting regions perpendicular to the plane of the film. About 10 microns of insulator separate the conducting regions. > >The films are on a substrate, usually metal. They are still made in very small quantities with an extremely slow (think of "fine wine") process. We are developing what I call a "table wine" process for production but it will be another year or two before this is accomplished with high reliability. The analog is the early semiconductor industry. The yield is presently very low. It is expected to increase on what we hope may eventually resemble an exponential curve. Mark Goldes Room Temperature Superconductors Inc. (ROOTS) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 18:44:56 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA01802; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 18:43:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 18:43:16 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 17:49:31 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Anti-Stokes and "Inverse" Compton Effect, ZPE Connection? Cc: "George" Resent-Message-ID: <"sxiQC.0.VR.poO4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22852 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 7:01 PM 9/29/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote: [snip] >> >>I would like to point out that the solar sail must work based mostly upon >>(solar emitted) particle momentum, not photon momentum. > >Wrong Horace. Alpha Particle or Fission sails >work on particle momentum. If you tried to bring off Photo-Electrons only, >the charge build-up would kill the thrust in seconds. >Now if you could photo-eject neutral particles... Not sure what you are talking about above. I'm saying I think the thrust from the solar wind is mainly from neutral particles from the sun. > >The idea of Gossamer Thin reflective Solar Sails has been kicked around for >decades. > >>If only photons >>were involved the sail would be have to absorb about 2.94x10^9 watts per kg >>force by my calculation. > >That sounds about right,1.0E-7 lb./ft^2. With a perfect reflector the force >is double that of an absorber. > >The data I have for "Solar Sails" is about >4.89E-7 Kg/meter^2 or meter^2/kg "thrust",or >about 2.45E9 watts/kg or 1.23E9 watts/kg for reflected photons. OK, well then, you are right about that part then. That means much of the thrust must be from photons, about half, much more than I thought. About the energy and momentum distibution, it is due to lattice vibration due to heat and due to electron motion. However, granted, the macro motion of a sail is probably *away* from the photon source. Even though the net motion is away there still does not seem to be any basis for the transfer of more momentum from the light than conserves energy based on simple kinetics. The speed of light is constant from the viewpoint of each particle interacting. It is as if the relative motion of the sail were zero from the sailor's point of view. If the relative motion of the sail is zero then the momentum imparted should be as if the sail were standing still, from the viewpoint of the sailors. The momentum will be transferred to particles with a random velocity distribution with initial mean vector velocity zero, from the sailor's frame of reference. As the sail departs with velocity approaching the speed of light, the relative velocity of the impinging light remains constant, though the red shift drops both the incoming photon momentum and energy. The watts per kg thrust remain constant, but the thrust drops due to the red shift, as well as 1/r^2 with distance. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 18:51:29 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA09199; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 18:49:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 18:49:41 -0700 Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 18:50:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809300150.SAA10510 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: what is VORTEX-L for? Resent-Message-ID: <"SwE2v1.0.bF2.quO4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22853 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To all, It looks like I have been barking up the wrong tree here all along. Now knowing my situation, let me ask one final question then head on, although I probably will lurk a while and see if there are any late breaking thoughts. Where is the best place for me to go next? Or, better put, where would you go if you had an idea like mine? David "still dreaming that impossible dream" From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 19:21:06 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA24065; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 19:17:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 19:17:21 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 18:23:41 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Superconductivity uses? Resent-Message-ID: <"mK5Wm3.0.tt5.lIP4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22854 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 9:40 AM 9/29/98, Jed Rothwell wrote: >To: Vortex > >As far as I know, superconductors have limited commercial value. >Superconductivity was discovered in 1911, but no practical use for it was >found until the mid 1960s. The Josephson effect was discovered in 1962 (by >Josephson, as it happens). This was used to make high-sensitivity measurements >of currents, voltages, and magnetic fields. High temperature superconductivity >was discovered in 1986 but so far it has only been used to replace low >temperature devices in established applications. > >Are there other commercial or large-scale scientific uses for superconductors? The main commercial use is for large magnets, for things like materials separation and NMR imaging and spectographic devices. Superconductors are also used in some radio telescope receivers and other amplification applications. Also, there are lots of SQUID applications, like magnetometers. JJ's are used for various things, including super fast data sampling circuits, like for special oscilloscopes. SC's have possibly been used in imaging systems with military appication. >There were plans to use them on the superconducting supercollider. Do any >existing colliders employ them? Lots of accellerators use them. The first big one was the Tevatron at Fermilab. I think the second was the Hadron-Electron Ring Anordnung (HERA) in Hamburg. There is a variety of amazingly compact electon synchrotrons around. There have been superconducing fusion devices as well. A great deal of research is now being done on >HTSC, but so far problems have stymied commercialization. These include >"brittleness, instabilities of the materials in some chemical environments, >and a tendency for impurities to segregate at surfaces and grain boundaries" >(Britannica). > >- Jed You might call some of the suppliers and ask what kind of customer base they have. I have a list of names and numbers if it is of use to you. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 19:36:40 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA00578; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 19:33:31 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 19:33:31 -0700 Message-ID: <00b701bdec1a$bc89e360$658f85ce default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Cc: "George" Subject: Re: Anti-Stokes and "Inverse" Compton Effect, ZPE Connection? Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 20:33:28 -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: <"19u0C1.0.j8.wXP4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22855 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Horace Heffner To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: George Date: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 7:45 PM Subject: Re: Anti-Stokes and "Inverse" Compton Effect, ZPE Connection? Horace wrote: >At 7:01 PM 9/29/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote: >[snip] >>> >>>I would like to point out that the solar sail must work based mostly upon >>>(solar emitted) particle momentum, not photon momentum. >> >>Wrong Horace. Alpha Particle or Fission sails >>work on particle momentum. If you tried to bring off Photo-Electrons only, >>the charge build-up would kill the thrust in seconds. >>Now if you could photo-eject neutral particles... > > >Not sure what you are talking about above. I'm saying I think the thrust >from the solar wind is mainly from neutral particles from the sun. If you can get the sparse 300-400 km/sec Solar Wind to give you anywhere near the Solar Sail Push, you're pulling off the second miracle of the century. :-) > >>The idea of Gossamer Thin reflective Solar Sails has been kicked around for >>decades. >> >>>If only photons >>>were involved the sail would be have to absorb about 2.94x10^9 watts per kg >>>force by my calculation. >> >>That sounds about right,1.0E-7 lb./ft^2. With a perfect reflector the force >>is double that of an absorber. >> >>The data I have for "Solar Sails" is about >>4.89E-7 Kg/meter^2 or meter^2/kg "thrust",or >>about 2.45E9 watts/kg or 1.23E9 watts/kg for reflected photons. > > >OK, well then, you are right about that part then. That means much of the >thrust must be from photons, about half, much more than I thought. > >About the energy and momentum distribution, it is due to lattice vibration >due to heat and due to electron motion. However, granted, the macro motion >of a sail is probably *away* from the photon source. Even though the net >motion is away there still does not seem to be any basis for the transfer >of more momentum from the light than conserves energy based on simple >kinetics. Simple Kinetics Horace? Have you tried to evaluate the Distribution Function g(v)even for a one-dimensional Lattice? A lot simpler to do the experiment than talk it to death. >The speed of light is constant from the viewpoint of each >particle interacting. It is as if the relative motion of the sail were >zero from the sailor's point of view. If the relative motion of the sail >is zero then the momentum imparted should be as if the sail were standing >still, from the viewpoint of the sailors. The momentum will be transferred >to particles with a random velocity distribution with initial mean vector >velocity zero, from the sailor's frame of reference. What is the relevance here? You got a thing about sailors. :-) > >As the sail departs with velocity approaching the speed of light, the >relative velocity of the impinging light remains constant, though the red >shift drops both the incoming photon momentum and energy. Thanks for the tour. >The watts per kg >thrust remain constant, but the thrust drops due to the red shift, as well >as 1/r^2 with distance. When get up to the speeds where this becomes a relevant issue, we'll be throwing a party on the Star Ship "Voyager". :-) Regards, Frederick > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 20:16:49 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA26815; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 20:15:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 20:15:18 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980929231506.008eda90 inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney inforamp.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 23:15:06 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: Anti-Stokes and "Inverse" Compton Effect, ZPE Connection? In-Reply-To: <007601bdec0d$faae5160$658f85ce default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"m0sX8.0.vY6.59Q4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22856 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 07:01 PM 09/29/98 -0600, Frederick wrote: Heat Flow and Work play a different game, dW = Q*(dT/T) or: >dW = dQ*(T1-T2)/T1 which says that heat flow through a heat conductor can >*possibly* DO WORK >"passively" with the right material and conditions. > >The best Ion Propulsion systems can get about a pound of >thrust/100Kilowatts, with a helluva heavy and expensive system. > >IF you could get that down to 5 or 10 Kw/lb with a lightweight passive >system.... :-) > >Go buy a 150 watt IR Heat Lamp and a can of black paint, coat the bulb >carefully, you can >use the bulb to fire the paint, put it in a vacuum chamber and see if it >will develop some >Phonon Drag, without the momentum cancellation you propose. You get >conservation of energy/momentum IF IT MOVES in the direction of heat flow. > I thought momentum was conserved if the light pressure falling on a black body was equal to that which originally kicked off.. IOW, how can momentum be conserved if the photon emitting black body's m1v1 does not equal the M2V2 of the photon absorbing black body? (huh?) Lets just suppose you kick off 1 unit of light pressure and you absorb 2X units. How do you know that those absorbed photons won't send an MV kick backwards in time to the original "kick-off" filament photons to conserve the C of M?. The system then remains stationary. :-) SERIOUSLY, suppose your experiment works; and heat flowing through a heat conductor does "WORK" What material absorbs best? What *are* the "right materials and conditions"? I don't know anything about "materials", but conditions ... There will come a point where an absorber will get so hot that it's efficiency will rapidly drop. And just like a heat engine, it will need a heat sink, but in this particular scenario, it will want a special heat sink that does not also get hot in it's own turn. There are only two heat sinks with those particular properties that come to my (albeit limited) mind: 1.) Electrostatic cooling 2.) Change of state "salts", etc: ie; liquid to solid, solid to gas, etc. Ok, now that we are back on subject, you guys can brainstorm it. (Then I can build it and take over the world :-) Regards, Colin Quinney From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 21:12:54 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA21077; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 21:10:45 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 21:10:45 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 20:17:07 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Anti-Stokes and "Inverse" Compton Effect, ZPE Connection? Cc: "George" Resent-Message-ID: <"ylzYV.0.E95.5zQ4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22857 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 8:33 PM 9/29/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote: [snip] >>Not sure what you are talking about above. I'm saying I think the thrust >>from the solar wind is mainly from neutral particles from the sun. > >If you can get the sparse 300-400 km/sec Solar Wind to give you anywhere >near the Solar Sail >Push, you're pulling off the second miracle of the century. :-) I get 2.94x10^9 watts/kg-f, full absorbtion of the photons. Your data implies 2.45E9 watts/kg-f. The extra thrust per watt must be coming from somewhere. Where do you think it comes from? [snip] >>The speed of light is constant from the viewpoint of each >>particle interacting. It is as if the relative motion of the sail were >>zero from the sailor's point of view. If the relative motion of the sail >>is zero then the momentum imparted should be as if the sail were standing >>still, from the viewpoint of the sailors. The momentum will be transferred >>to particles with a random velocity distribution with initial mean vector >>velocity zero, from the sailor's frame of reference. > >What is the relevance here? You got a thing about sailors. :-) [snip] Hey the Navy has its babes. They retire to become Baywatch lifeguards. Rumor has it that triple dippers go for a third career as lab assistants. 8^) The relevance is that the "Momentum Amplification" principle provides no extra momentum, no extra energy, because the mean velocity vector of the photon absorbers is zero relative to the sailor babes, who see no extra thrust. The speed of light is constant in all reference frames. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 21:59:38 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA08828; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 21:56:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 21:56:33 -0700 Message-ID: <02aa01bdec2e$79e148a0$ba98a8cf hh2152186.www.surfsouth.com> From: "Bill Wallace" To: Subject: Re: what is VORTEX-L for? Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 00:54:56 -0400 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: <"Q-nD62.0.e92.0eR4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22858 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >logic is faulty if you think anyone is sitting around here waiting for an idea. >No matter how significant you think yours is, we already have our own >favorites. I would be interested in what a poll of the vortex list would show as the top 5 ideas or theories members are interested in or working on? From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 21:59:50 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA09545; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 21:57:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 21:57:25 -0700 Message-ID: <3611AD4E.7DBD earthlink.net> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 23:02:23 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Blue: Storms: CF theory problems 9.28.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"bmkU32.0.fK2.reR4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22859 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Subject: Re: Storms: Blue: CF discussion impasse 9.27.98 Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 10:52:29 -0400 (EDT) From: "Richard A Blue" To: rmforall earthlink.net I don't understand why Ed Storms continues to attempt to marginalize my stated position by his constant distortions. Let me again say in plain English that I agree with his requirements for there to be further dialog. Ed Storms says: > > 1. We must be willing to admit that unusual conditions might produce > unexpected results. I AGREE!!!!!!! I certainly do not believe that every conceivable physical observation can be correctly predicted in advance. I would not have pursued a career in experimental physics, if I thought that existing theories were complete and perfect in every respect. My experience has certainly demonstrated the contrary. However, I think it is folly to believe that present knowledge derived from previous expermental observations can, or should, be ignored when interpreting new observations. The old observations retain their validity, until they are proven faulty. One major problem, as I see it, with Ed Storms' thoughts regarding CANR is he simply assumes that there are "unusual conditions", when, in fact, he has no evidence for anything being unusual in any respect. His methods and materials are all very, very ordinary. > 2. We must be willing to admit that conventional theory may have gaps in > its structure which, if filled, allow these phenomenon to be explained. > For example, Y. E. Kim (Purdue Univ.) has shown, using conventional > theory, that the coulomb barrier between deuterons is much less than > previous calculations have predicted. This new insight results from > including a number of factors which were omitted for simplicity sake by > previous workers. In addition, new calculations (G. W. Robinson, Texas > Tech Univ.) of the maximum translational energy of deuterons in such a > structure is higher than previously thought. These two conventional > behaviors when combined increase the ease which which fusion might take > place if other conditions are favorable. These new insights may not > provide all of the necessary understanding, but they demonstrate that > gaps in our conventional knowledge do exist. > Again, I say I have not been asserting that there is some "conventional theory" that strictly forbids CANR. I do not agree that Y. E. Kim has demonstrated that there is a significant reduction in the coulomb barrier. Too many other people have examined this same aspect of the problem, and come to a different conclusion. I am not familiar with the Robinson calculations, so I cannot comment one way or the other. However, I am willing at this point to concede complete validity to either or both of these assertions -- that there are effects that could enhance the deuteron fusion rate. I will even give you whatever factor you think is required. However, all of this is of no use, unless you are considering a fusion hypothesis. Is that what we are to discuss? I think I have already telegraphed how I think one has to deal with a fusion hypothesis. Neither Kim nor Robinson has offered anything to account for the observations you claim are definitive. Your position is not helped by their calculations!!! > 3. We must be willing to admit that the way in which past experience has > been interpreted needs to be revised. An example is the way Einstein > reinterpreted the way gravity was viewed or the way the matter-energy > relationship was understood. Such giant steps do not happen very often > but they are possible. Nor do I think such steps should be taken on a > whim, as Dr. Blue suggests I am doing. It only requires a willingness > to consider the possibility. > I am not sure what Ed Storms is trying to suggest here. While Einstein did provide a new interpretation of gravity, nothing he said invalidated Kepler's observations on the orbits of the planets. Likewise, I should think that if some modern-day "Onemug" offers a revision of quantum theory, the fact that ordinary matter is stable against nuclear reactions will not be changed. I suppose we could launch into some New Age thinking to the effect that the stability to which I refer is just an illusion, resulting from my "interpretation" of experimental observations. Is that where this is heading? > The bottom line is: Dr. Blue wants me to demonstrate that the claims > fit into conventional theory before he will accept them, and I admit > this can not be done. > > Therefore, If Dr. Blue is unwilling to at least consider that a new > phenomenon has been discovered and open the discussion to some > unconventional explanations, we are wasting our time. This is a shame > because the experience and expertise which Dr. Blue could bring to such > a discussion would be a value to us all. > The fact is I have, for many years, simply been trying to draw from Ed Storms (or anyone) a direct statement as to which "unconventional explanation" they wish to have considered. It should be obvious to all, by now, that Ed Storms is not offering any explanation, conventional or unconventional to the nth degree. He simply is avoiding some painful truths about CANR by pretending that no explanation is required. Now as I have been pointing out, an abandonment of all that is conventional leaves Ed Storms with nothing, because he cannot connect a temperature reading to any form of energy production, let alone a nuclear process, unless he uses some very conventional thinking about the physical processes involved. Thus his plea for a move away from the conventional is totally insincere. He is clinging very tightly to some very conventional theory. He is just advocating a selective and irrational rejection of conventional thinking at those points where it conflicts with his wishes. Thus we see that he wishes for a higher deuteron fusion rate (very conventional), but insists that the result of fusion can on a mere whim be made unconventional in whatever way fits some observation. Then, of course, whenever an different observation comes along, we should not be distrubed by the different result because, of course, consistancy of result is just a conventional expectation that should be abandoned. Where does this leave us? Ed Storms and the other CANR advocates will continue to collect their "observations", but they will not make progress toward an understanding of what they observe, because they are unwilling, or unable to accept any of the constraints of conventional thinking. For them, absolutely anything goes -- except, of course, a negative experimental outcome. All those null measurements are to be discarded as "invalid". The only justification for a rejection that is required is a personal dislike for the result. My question for the day: If there is some absolute threshold for electrolysis current density that must be exceeded to trigger CANR, how is it possible for Arata and Zhang to succeed with an electrolysis current on the reacting palladium of ZERO? Thinking in a somewhat conventional manner, I see these data as indicating that electrolysis current really has no essential role in the CANR process. There is really no reason why it should, yet the claim for a current threshold is used to reject lots of experimental results. There is more wrong with this picture than just some unconventional thinking. Gary Taubes labeled it correctly as "Bad Science." Dick Blue Subject: Re: Storms: Blue: CF discussions 9.25.98 Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 12:10:36 -0400 (EDT) From: "Richard A Blue" To: rmforall earthlink.net Good! We are actually going to discuss nuclear reactions. That is a breakthrough. I object to Ed Storms' use of the term "hot fusion", because it implies that temperature is a significant and controlling parameter. It is not. We are discussion fusion. Leave off the modifier. That is certainly a simplification, if that's what you are after. Now the Storms assertion is that we can divide fusion into two subcatagories: conventional and unconventional. However, I note that such terminology conveys no information. What is certainly required in the context of CANR is some discussion of how an ordinary chemical environment can alter a nuclear reaction process to turn a fusion-like event into something unconventional. It is clear that Ed Storms has something rather conventional in mind when he seeks a CANR explanation for the observations of excess heat. He returns to the old argument that the observed power levels are too great to be of chemical origin. That is very conventional thinking, is it not? So there is an expectation that deuteron fusion lies at the heart of the process being observed, i.e. we have here a fusion hypothesis. I don't understand why Ed Storms has to dance around without saying this. Now let's get other observations of deuterium fusion on the table. Can be agree that there is such a thing muon-catalyzed cold fusion? That is not induced by a hot plasma is it? Can we agree that cold fusion results in the emission of a neutron or a proton most of the time? What this demonstrates rather clearly is that the reaction products are not strongly dependent on the kinetic energy of the reacting deuterons. Indeed, if you consider all the data on neutron/proton ratios measured over a broad range of incident energies, you can extrapolate right down to zero and hit that cold fusion data point with no evidence for any discontinuous behavior. You can initiate the inverse reactions and gain further information on the 4-nucleon system under conditions of all sorts of relative motion. Then you can derive, from the experimental observations, wave functions for the system that pretty well wrap up in one nice package a very large body of experimental data. I have to say this is a thoroughly studied and well understood physical system. Of course few of the observations to which I refer are made in free space devoid of any other form of matter. For example, in my own research we routinely used targets of metalic deuterides. Our expectations, confirmed by observations, were that the host lattice did not introduce unexpected perturbations on the reaction process. A deuteron in a metal lattice is pretty much the same thing as a deuteron in a D2 molecule or a D2O molecule. Now Ed Storms wants to assert that his deuterons are somehow different. I don't think I am being unreasonable to suggest that an assertion that the Storms deuterons are different is simply not adequate. There ought to be something more to back up such assertions, if we are to accept them as part of a rational, scientific discussion. I would sincerely like to know how and why the Storms deuterons come to be different from the ones we buy at the store. Although I admit this is rather conventional, I tend to want to put this discussion into the context of quantum perturbation theory. The ideas are really so simple and reasonable that I find it difficult to move away from them. I would say that going into the Pd lattice, the dueterons are initially ordinary and unperturbed. That is to say the internal wave function for one of those deuterons is what you read about in a textbook. Now, for me at least, to get the deuterons to react in some totally unexpected way means that you must alter, i.e. perturb, their wave functions. What the theory says is that a large alteration in the wave function requires a large perturbing potential. Now here you have to understand that "large" is meant to be judged on the scale of the unperturbed potential responsible for binding the neutron and the proton in the first place. That is to say we need an interaction potential of perhaps 1 MeV. I'd like to see a calculation before I'd believe it could be much less. Let's face it! The chemical environment does not offer up many possibilities for potentials large enough to greatly alter nuclear wave functions. That is a topic that has long been investigated under the CANR heading, and it's not that we have no information on the subject. I think I can safely assert that the PdD lattice does not greatly perturb said nuclear wave functions. Now if you want to challenge that notion, I would suggest a course of experimentation that might directly probe said wave functions. To try to infer such perturbations from calorimetry is just not the right way to go about this. So we really are left with deuterons in the PdD lattice with wave functions that are not too different from those of free deuterons. That means that if two of those critters should actually fuse, for whatever reason, we are started down the old familiar reaction pathway. What happens next is over in a flash, before your typical atomic electron can even twitch. I rather doubt that said electrons are going to make much difference, when there is 23 MeV of energy to be dumped by the newly formed 4He system. As fast as it takes an energetic neutron to move beyond the range of the nuclear potential, it's all over. That neutron is gone! It's out of there, and nothing atomic is going to hinder its departure. Now why is that picture so hard to grasp? It's not very theoretical at all. Neutrons depart whenever they can. If it is energetically possible to have neutron emission, you will have neutron emission, unless something else happens faster. Atoms are just too damn slow and too damn weak to compete in this game. To ask for deuteron fusion without neutron emission is about as reasonable as asking for a chemical reaction with sufficient energy release to account for the excess heat. In both cases you are asking for an energy shift that is impossible for the systems under consideration. It makes no sense to reject one of these possibilities, while accepting, without justification, the other. Dick Blue From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 29 23:01:40 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA03220; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 23:00:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 23:00:03 -0700 Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 23:01:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809300601.XAA22274 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: what is VORTEX-L for? Resent-Message-ID: <"EN78c.0.Ao.YZS4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22860 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Bill says; > > I would be interested in what a poll of the vortex list would show as the > top 5 ideas or theories members are interested in or working on? > > Bill you know my vote, but my vote doesn't count. My last post never made it in let's see if this does. David From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 30 01:02:18 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA01496; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 00:59:56 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 00:59:56 -0700 Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 10:01:24 +0200 (MET DST) From: britz To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Blue vs Storms Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"clWxw.0.IN.xJU4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22861 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I have been following the Blue/Storms arguments in spf and want to comment. I have cut out what I want to comment on, so it may be a bit unusual in format: Subject: Re: Storms: Blue: CF discussion impasse 9.27.98 Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 10:52:29 -0400 (EDT) From: "Richard A Blue" [...] > My question for the day: If there is some absolute threshold for > electrolysis current density that must be exceeded to trigger CANR, > how is it possible for Arata and Zhang to succeed with an > electrolysis current on the reacting palladium of ZERO? Thinking in > a somewhat conventional manner, I see these data as indicating that > electrolysis current really has no essential role in the CANR > process. There is really no reason why it should, yet the claim for > a current threshold is used to reject lots of experimental results. > There is more wrong with this picture than just some unconventional > thinking. Gary Taubes labeled it correctly as "Bad Science." Regarding the A&Z work, I don't think there is any conflict. There is in fact a current flowing, hence a pressure to load; this is transmitted through the Pd "bottle" wall, to the Pd powder inside, and there is thus a pressure to load the powder, just the same as if there were a current flowing at the powder surface. If it indeed is nonequilibrium that is required (normally: a charging current flowing), we have it here. A current threshold (better: a current density threshold) would translate into an overpotential threshold and hence to a fugacity threshold (F&P's famous 10^26 figure, a fugacity, though not an actual pressure). They are all the same. Still playing Devil's advocate here: Dick, your main thrust seems to be that you want the experimenters, who claim interesting results, to also devise theories to explain them, before you'll accept the results. I think this is a bit unfair. I agree with the enthusiasts that if a result is obtained unambiguously, it stands, whether they can explain it or not. There are theorists, usually better able to do theory, than the experimenters. Let them take on that job. Meanwhile, a more useful attack would be on the "unambiguous" bit. What IS wrong, specifically, with Ed's results, other than that they do not conform with what one might expect? -- Dieter Britz. Visit me at http://www.kemi.aau.dk/~db From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 30 01:49:44 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA07700; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 01:46:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 01:46:52 -0700 Message-Id: <3611FD1F.9EDEC12C verisoft.com.tr> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 11:42:55 +0200 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; U) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex Subject: Electromagnetic Quantum Gravity: On the Quantum Principle ... (eprint:physics/9809042) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"O3SKo1.0.7u1.x_U4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22862 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9809042 To avoid some browser problems: Instead of open the HTML link, do "Save Link As" to save the single large HTML file to disk. Regards, hamdi ucar Physics, abstract physics/9809042 From: "Ostoma, Tom" Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 13:15:53 GMT (436kb,H) Electromagnetic Quantum Gravity: On the Quantum Principle of Equivalence, Quantum Inertia, and the Meaning of Mass Authors: Tom Ostoma (U of T), Mike Trushyk (Barringer Ltd.) Comments: 156 pages, 15 figures, the original Document is in MS Word format, and available from the authors through e-mail Report-no: E-0101 Subj-class: General Physics A new approach to Quantum Gravity is proposed that is manifestly compatible with Cellular Automata (CA) theory, and is based on a new quantum theory of inertia where Newtonian Inertia results from the electromagnetic forces between the (electrically) charged elementary particles of an accelerated mass and the surrounding (electrically) charged virtual particles of the quantum vacuum. At the Plank scale, there exists a quantized, absolute 3D space and separate (quantized) time which is not affected by motion or gravity. Light is the simple shifting of a photon information pattern from cell to adjacent cell at every CA 'clock cycle'. The Lorentz transformation is derived from our simple model of light motion. Inertial mass is revised to acknowledge the absolute nature of mass and acceleration. The same electromagnetic quantum vacuum forces are also present in masses inside a gravitational field, where now the quantum vacuum is accelerated with respect to the mass by graviton exchanges. This process is responsible for the equivalence principle (WEP), which is derived in detail. Gravity is found to be based on two boson force exchange particles: the graviton and the photon, and both particles are postulated to be almost identical in physical characteristics. 4D space-time curvature is found to result from a 'Fizeau-like' scattering process, where the accelerated (electrically charged) virtual particles of the quantum vacuum act like a special 'Fizeau fluid'. Light scatters with the electrically charged and accelerated 'Fizeau fluid', resulting in curved paths. Four experimental tests of EMQG are proposed. Paper: Source (436kb), HTML From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 30 01:55:19 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA09446; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 01:54:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 01:54:28 -0700 Message-Id: <3611FEE4.EAD084E0 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 11:50:28 +0200 From: Hamdi Ucar X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; U) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex Subject: Energy of the vacuum with a perfectly conducting and infinite cylindrical surface (eprint:hep-th/9809199) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"51KVa1.0.UJ2.37V4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22863 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9809199 Regards, hamdi ucar High Energy Physics - Theory, abstract hep-th/9809199 From: gosdzins u6.ifae.es (Peter Gosdzinsky) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 07:44:27 GMT (13kb) Energy of the vacuum with a perfectly conducting and infinite cylindrical surface Authors: P. Gosdzinsky, A. Romeo Comments: LaTeX, 13 pages, to be published in Phys. Lett. B Report-no: UAB-FT-454, IEEC-CG-FT-09-98 Subj-class: High Energy Physics - Theory; Mathematical Physics Values for the vacuum energy of scalar fields under Dirichlet and Neuman boundary conditions on an infinite clylindrical surface are found, and they happen to be of opposite signs. In contrast with classical works, a complete zeta function regularization scheme is here applied. These fields are regarded as interesting both by themselves and as the key to describing the electromagnetic (e.m.) case. With their help, the figure for the e.m. Casimir effect in the presence of this surface, found by De Raad and Milton, is now confirmed. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 30 03:17:19 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA23236; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 03:16:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 03:16:40 -0700 Message-ID: <002401bdec5b$7498ec40$87b4bfa8 default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Cc: "George" Subject: Re: Anti-Stokes and "Inverse" Compton Effect, ZPE Connection? Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 04:16:48 -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: <"Dx1KQ1.0.ug5.7KW4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22864 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Quinney To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 9:17 PM Subject: Re: Anti-Stokes and "Inverse" Compton Effect, ZPE Connection? Colin wrote: > Frederick wrote: > Heat Flow and Work play a different game, dW = Q*(dT/T) or: >>dW = dQ*(T1-T2)/T1 which says that heat flow through a heat conductor can >>*possibly* DO WORK >>"passively" with the right material and conditions. >> >>The best Ion Propulsion systems can get about a pound of >>thrust/100Kilowatts, with a helluva heavy and expensive system. >> >>IF you could get that down to 5 or 10 Kw/lb with a lightweight passive >>system.... :-) >> >>Go buy a 150 watt IR Heat Lamp and a can of black paint, coat the bulb >>carefully, you can >>use the bulb to fire the paint, put it in a vacuum chamber and see if it >>will develop some >>Phonon Drag, without the momentum cancellation you propose. You get >>conservation of energy/momentum IF IT MOVES in the direction of heat flow. >> > > >I thought momentum was conserved if the light pressure falling on a black >body was equal to that which originally kicked off.. Should be,unless the system converts some of the heat generated to work. A basic tenet of mechanics: In a closed system the sum of the forces, Fx + Fy + Fz = 0, But this IS NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM! >IOW, how can momentum be conserved if the photon emitting black body's m1v1 >does not equal the M2V2 of the photon absorbing black body? (huh?) The black body exerts a force/moves. :-) >Lets just suppose you kick off 1 unit of light pressure and you absorb 2X >units. How do you know that those absorbed photons won't send an MV kick >backwards in time to the original "kick-off" filament photons to conserve >the C of M?. The system then remains stationary. :-) I hope not. Calculate the reflected photon momenta. > >SERIOUSLY, suppose your experiment works; and heat flowing through a heat >conductor does "WORK". >What material absorbs best? What *are* the "right materials and conditions"? I would say Graphite "cloth" might be a good choice for a first cut, or a ceramic material such as Beryllium Oxide that has high thermal k but very low electrical k, thus few free electrons to complicate things. >I don't know anything about "materials", but conditions ... There will come >a point where an absorber will get so hot that it's efficiency will rapidly >drop. Shouldn't matter if Q and delta T remain the same. >And just like a heat engine, it will need a heat sink, but in this >particular scenario, it will want a special heat sink that does not also >get hot in it's own turn. I think the 3 K of space is a pretty good heat sink, and I don't think you will raise it to 4 K anytime soon. :-) > >Ok, now that we are back on subject, you guys can brainstorm it. >(Then I can build it and take over the world :-) You've been watching *Pinky and the Brain* haven't you? :-)My favorite SCIENTISTS. Regards, Frederick > > >Regards, > >Colin Quinney > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 30 04:17:58 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA31703; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 04:17:08 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 04:17:08 -0700 Message-ID: <003401bdec63$e6f25300$87b4bfa8 default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Cc: "George" Subject: Re: One-Dimensional Lattice Vibrations (Was Anti-Stokes and....) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 05:17:20 -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: <"MMa2y3.0.Gl7.pCX4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22865 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Try this, Colin and Horace, Mount tuning forks/oscillators in a row on a board resting on a frictionless surface (an airslide is ok). Use a battery-powered driver on the first "oscillator" in the row. -/\/\/\- = "tuning forks or vibrating springs molecular bonds". -o- = "molecules" ? <----------> s1 s2 s3 s4 |o-/\/\/\-o-/\/\/\-o-/\/\/\-0-/\/\/\-o-| |______________________________________| _____O__________________________O______________ /////////////////////////////////////////////// Now then, will a high amplitude/frequency in oscillator/spring s1 result in a lessor amplitude/frequency in s2 thru s4 (the same as a thermal gradient/heat flow) and thus a net force on the "system"? Which way? You do the math. :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 30 05:18:58 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA21166; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 05:17:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 05:17:59 -0700 Message-ID: <004001bdec6c$67e7a7a0$87b4bfa8 default> From: "Frederick J Sparber" To: Subject: The Wire - Breaking News from the Associated Press (http://wire.ap.org/?SLUG=ST Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 06:16:53 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01BDEC39.EB2E1A00" 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: <"fI-mS.0.eA5.t5Y4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22866 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_0007_01BDEC39.EB2E1A00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Now thats Energy you can use. :-) http://wire.ap.org/?SLUG=STELLAR%2dERUPTION ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BDEC39.EB2E1A00 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="The Wire - Breaking News from the Associated Press.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="The Wire - Breaking News from the Associated Press.url" [InternetShortcut] URL=http://wire.ap.org/?SLUG=STELLAR%2dERUPTION Modified=60127C0D6CECBD0111 ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BDEC39.EB2E1A00-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 30 06:16:48 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA12917; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 06:15:45 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 06:15:45 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com ) Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com Message-ID: <36122F4F.478E1483 css.mot.com> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 08:17:03 -0500 From: John Steck Organization: Motorola PCS - Rapid Tooling Applications X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Discussion Group - Vortex Subject: Re: what is VORTEX-L for? References: <199809300150.SAA10510 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"IGGzB3.0.i93.0yY4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22867 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: David Dennard wrote: > Or, better put, where would you go if you had an idea like mine? To the hardware store. 8^) -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John E. Steck Senior Mechanical Engineer Rapid Tooling Applications Motorola, Libertyville, IL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Who watches the watchmen?" - The Comedian From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 30 07:38:08 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA09548; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 07:33:56 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 07:33:56 -0700 Comments: ( Received on ftpbox.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com ) Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com Message-ID: <361241A2.1252A5D8 css.mot.com> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 09:35:14 -0500 From: John Steck Organization: Motorola PCS - Rapid Tooling Applications X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: what is VORTEX-L for? References: <02aa01bdec2e$79e148a0$ba98a8cf hh2152186.www.surfsouth.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"L7GP23.0.1L2.I5a4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22868 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Bill Wallace wrote: > I would be interested in what a poll of the vortex list would show as the > top 5 ideas or theories members are interested in or working on? Macro-scale quantum resonance structure constructions. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John E. Steck Senior Mechanical Engineer Rapid Tooling Applications Motorola, Libertyville, IL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Who watches the watchmen?" - The Comedian From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 30 09:57:18 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA32560; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 09:55:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 09:55:42 -0700 Sender: jack pop.centuryinter.net Message-ID: <36121A07.6259C1D3 mail.pc.centuryinter.net> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 11:46:15 +0000 From: "Taylor J. Smith" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 2.0.31 i486) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Anti-Stokes and "Inverse" Compton Effect, ZPE Connection? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="x" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="x" Resent-Message-ID: <"ZwLrB3.0.ey7.DAc4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22869 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: About the energy and momentum distibution, it is due to lattice vibration due to heat and due to electron motion. However, granted the macro motion of a sail is probably *away* from the photon source. Even though the net motion is away there still does not seem to be any basis for the transfer of more momentum from the light than conserves energy based on simple kinetics. The speed of light is constant from the viewpoint of each particle interacting. It is as if the relative motion of the sail were zero from the sailor's point of view. If the relative motion of the sail is zero then the momentum imparted should be as if the sail were standing still, from the viewpoint of the sailors. The momentum will be transferred to particles with a random velocity distribution with initial mean vector velocity zero, from the sailor's frame of reference. As the sail departs with velocity approaching the speed of light, the relative velocity of the impinging light remains constant, though the red shift drops both the incoming photon momentum and energy. The watts per kg thrust remain constant, but the thrust drops due to the red shift, as well as 1/r^2 with distance. Regards, Horace Heffner Frederick J Sparber wrote: When you get up to the speeds where this becomes a relevant issue, we'll be throwing a party on the Star Ship "Voyager". :-) Regards, Frederick Colin Quinney wrote: I thought momentum was conserved if the light pressure falling on a black body was equal to that which originally kicked off.. How can momentum be conserved if the photon emitting black body's m1v1 does not equal the M2V2 of the photon absorbing black body? Hi All, Hamdi has found some interesting material on photon mementum transfer at http://xxx.lanl.gov/html/physics/9809042, including the slickest derivation of E=MCsquared which I have ever seen. Horace writes: ... the red shift drops both the incoming photon momentum and energy. Hi Horace, I would appreciate an expanded explanation of the above statement regarding red shift; equations would be helpful. Thamks, Jack Smith PS Speaking of the ZPE connection, the following is from Hamdi's reference: A new approach to quantum gravity called Electro-Magnetic Quantum Gravity (EMQG) is described. It is manifestly compatible with Cellular Automata (CA) theory (ref. 1), and is based on a new theory of inertia (ref. 5) proposed by R. Haisch, A. Rueda, and H. Puthoff (which we modified and called Quantum Inertia). They show that Newtonian Inertia is due to the strictly local electromagnetic force interactions of matter (quantum particles) with the surrounding charged virtual particles of the quantum vacuum. The sum of all the tiny electromagnetic forces originating from each charged particle in the mass with respect to the vacuum, is the source of the total inertial force of a mass which opposes accelerated motion in Newton's law F = MA. Their theory also resolves the problems and paradoxes of accelerated motion introduced in Mach's principle, by suggesting that the state of acceleration of the charged virtual particles of the quantum vacuum (with respect to a mass) serves as Newton's universal reference frame for the mass, which Newton called absolute space. The (net statistical) acceleration of the charged virtual particles of the quantum vacuum (with respect to some test mass) can be used as an absolute reference frame to gauge inertial mass. Therefore, this frame can be used to define both absolute acceleration and absolute mass, which is equivalent to relativistic rest mass. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 30 09:59:24 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA00768; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 09:57:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 09:57:17 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980930120045.00de2c28 mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 12:00:45 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: what is VORTEX-L for? In-Reply-To: <361241A2.1252A5D8 css.mot.com> References: <02aa01bdec2e$79e148a0$ba98a8cf hh2152186.www.surfsouth.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"aQjFS.0.lB.iBc4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22870 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Bill Wallace wrote: >> I would be interested in what a poll of the vortex list would show as the >> top 5 ideas or theories members are interested in or working on? A cold fusion demonstration apparatus. 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 Sep 30 10:20:37 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA11964; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 10:18:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 10:18:35 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ppsclnt12.pok.ibm.com: theywood owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 13:19:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Todd Heywood X-Sender: theywood ppsclnt12.pok.ibm.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: what is VORTEX-L for? In-Reply-To: <5010400027383862000002L022* MHS> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"lPQzw.0.kw2.gVc4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22871 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Bill Wallace wrote: >> I would be interested in what a poll of the vortex list would show as the >> top 5 ideas or theories members are interested in or working on? What/where/when/how/why is space and time? This underlies everything else IMHO. Todd Heywood From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 30 10:38:07 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA20377; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 10:36:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 10:36:10 -0700 Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 10:37:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809301737.KAA18511 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: what is VORTEX-L for? Resent-Message-ID: <"szkSN.0.5-4.Amc4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22872 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott says, > > A cold fusion demonstration apparatus. Hi Scott, I was reading some things Hal said last night about the jiggle. I think this jiggle and the wobble I have been talking about are the same thing, only one is on the micro scale and the other is on the macro scale. The wiggle of the vortex is much the the quantum jiggle. David Dennard From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 30 13:04:39 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA19871; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 13:00:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 13:00:20 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 12:06:38 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Anti-Stokes and "Inverse" Compton Effect, ZPE Connection? Resent-Message-ID: <"odVHn1.0.pr4.Ite4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22873 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 3:46 AM 9/30/98, Taylor J. Smith wrote: >Horace writes: > > ... the red shift drops both the incoming photon momentum and energy. > >Hi Horace, > >I would appreciate an expanded explanation of the above statement >regarding red shift; equations would be helpful. [snip] Uh oh, a homework assignment, and me short on time. I knew I should have kept quiet! 8^) If I had more time maybe I could make this more concise and to the point. Sorry. Some starting point equations relating to photons and waves: E = h nu (Planck) (1) E = m c^2 (Einstein) (2) lambda = c/nu (3) p = E/c = (h)(nu)/c = h/lambda (4) Assume the sail is 100 percent black, albedo zero. If photons are absorbed at rate n photons per second for time t, then the total reaction force is given by: F = (n p)/t (5) and the power absorbed by the sail is given by: P = (E n)/t (6) It is of interest the amount of energy absorbed by the sail per unit of momentum supplied to the rocket is obtained by substituting (4) into E/p: E/p = E/(E/c) = c (7) Notice that the amount of energy per unit of momentum imparted to the sail is *independent of the wavelength* of the photon. In fact, it is independent of anything else, as it is constant. I suppose this is self evident, especially considering equation (4), but it is important to the basic issues at hand. As energy per photon goes up, so does momentum, and vice versa. They have a linear relationship. To determine the power absorbed by the sail per unit of thrust we devide (6) by (5) to obtain: P/F = (n E)/(n p) = E/p (8) but from (7) E/p = c, so: P/F = c (9) and we immediately see: P = c F (10) We know that one kg-force is equalto 9.807 newtons, or 9.807 kg-m/s^2. So we now see that to produce thrust using photons of any energy we need the sail to absorb a photonic power per kg of thrust of at least: P = (3x10^8 m/s)(9.807 kg-m/s^2) = 2.94x10^9 kg-m^2/s^3 (11) P = 2.94x10^9 watts (12) This is why photonic rockets are not so great. For photon rockets it's the same process in reverse, as is the case where photons are reflected from the sail. Unilike particles, the photons leave the sun (or other light source,like a laser) with constant velocity c, yet arrive at the moving sail at the same velocity c, regardless of the sail's velocity. If non-zero rest mass particles did this it would be obvious that free energy were gained somehow by the reacting particles accelerating between the time launched and the time absorbed by the sail. If, with expenditure of a fixed amount of energy, you can add the same momentum to a departing mass being at any velocity, independent of the energy initially supplied, you have free energy. The photon arrives at the same velocity regardless of the energy cost of emitting it. It would appear on the surface, when looked at as a particle, to have the requisite characteristics for providing free energy. However, nature extracts her toll even with the photon, and even at low velocities, though the effect is easier to understand when considered in context of near light speed events. The energy toll is extracted by nature in the form of the red shift, a result of the Doppler effect. The amount of change in wavelength of light, delta lambda, is proportional to the ratio of Vr/c, where Vr is the recession speed of the departing sail relative to the light source, the rate at which it departs. If lambda0 is the wavelength emitted, and lambda is the wavelength absorbed at the sail then: lambda0 = lambda + (delta lambda) (13) (delta labda)/lambda0 = Vr/c. (14) So: (delta lambada) = (lambda0)(Vr)/c (15) As the recession velocity increases, lambda decreases. Equation (4) provides in general: (p)(lambda) = h (4) and, substituting (15) into (13): lambda = lambda0 - (lambda0)(Vr/c) (16) If p0 is the energy imparted when Vr is zero, and p1 is the energy imparted at Vr, we have: (p0)(lambda0) = h (17) and: (p1)(lambda0 - (lambda0)(Vr/c)) = h (18) so: p1 = (1-Vr/c)P0 (19) and we can see that p1 is diminsihed as Vr increases. Further, the amount the momentum imparted deltap is diminished is given by: deltap = p1 - p0 = (1-Vr/c)P0 - p0 (20) deltap = (-Vr/c)p0 (21) so the incrmental momentum, delta p, mother natures' tax, is proportional to the velocity of recession. Since E is proportional to p, the same can be said of deltaE. Energy is conserved, as is momentum. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 30 13:29:16 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA31055; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 13:26:05 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 13:26:05 -0700 Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 14:27:45 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: what is VORTEX-L for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"qDVtw1.0.-a7.RFf4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22874 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Bill Wallace wrote: >> I would be interested in what a poll of the vortex list would show as the >> top 5 ideas or theories members are interested in or working on? Aether concentration and capture for mechanical use, or anything that can tap into it. -=se=- steve ( yes, i know, pipe dreams:) ekwall you DID say, "interested in!" From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 30 13:32:15 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA00171; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 13:29:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 13:29:09 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980930153235.00de49b0 mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 15:32:35 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Blue vs Storms In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"1wAw02.0.Q2.JIf4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22875 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:01 9/30/98 +0200, britz wrote: >Still playing Devil's advocate here: Dick, your main thrust seems to >be that you want the experimenters, who claim interesting results, to >also devise theories to explain them, before you'll accept the >results. I think this is a bit unfair. I agree with Dieter here...but I also bet that Dick is not really demanding that valid theories accompany anomalous observations. The real problem is that cold fusion observations are not reproducible and hence cannot be studied. McKubre, for example, has tried valiantly to study the excess heat effect. He has had some positive results but he cannot make the phenomenon appear on demand. He recently told me that they are now up to about 200,000 hours of null calorimetric results on cold fusion experiments. That's 23 YEARS worth of experiments running 24 hours a day!!! (yes, they have more than one calorimeter) I don't care how many layers of protection and security you build into any one measurement system, if positive results occur as infrequently as they do at SRI, you cannot guarantee that such results are not the product of a systematic error. I've brought this possibility up before and folks always jump on me and demand that I identify the nature of such an error. That's impossible because, by definition, such an error is one that nobody has conceived of yet. If we only had a cold fusion demonstration apparatus...an experiment that produced significant excess heat every time. This discussion would stop instantly and we would all get busy researching the phenomenon. Lacking that, some progress can still be made with experiments that work sporadically, provided that redundant measuring systems are employed to virtually eliminate systematic errors. Ed Storms has recently constructed a dual-method calorimeter which simultaneously measures the heat output from his cell by two independent methods: mass-flow calorimetry and isoperibolic calorimetry. Ed is a capable experimentalist and the probability that either of these measurements will suffer a significant systematic error during an experiment is quite small. Therefore the probability that both measurements will suffer a similar systematic error at the same time is vanishingly small. As I understand it, Ed is presently beginning a campaign using this dual-method calorimeter to find a Pd cathode that produces excess heat. He is well-equipped to perform this search, having investigated electrolytic loading of Pd rather thoroughly in recent years. Over the past 9 years, Ed has made himself into an expert in electrochemistry. He has first-hand experience with the numerous problems that can plague the attainment of high D/Pd loading ratios and he is expert in in-situ measurements of these loading ratios, important for evaluating the status of a cathode during the experiment. If Ed succeeds in finding/creating Pd cathodes which exhibit significant excess heat signals that read substantially the same in both channels of his calorimeter, it will convince me that the effect is real and I expect that several groups (ourselves included) will move immediately to replicate his work...and then the field will take off. If Ed does not succeed in, say, two years I think he will give up trying. That will be... a. a stake through the heart of cold fusion. b. one more little bump in the road to unlimited free energy. (choose your own ending) 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 Sep 30 13:47:53 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA10491; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 13:45:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 13:45:15 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 12:51:35 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: what is VORTEX-L for? Resent-Message-ID: <"7-Uee2.0.pZ2.QXf4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22876 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:54 AM 9/30/98, Bill Wallace wrote: >>logic is faulty if you think anyone is sitting around here waiting for an >idea. >>No matter how significant you think yours is, we already have our own >>favorites. > >I would be interested in what a poll of the vortex list would show as the >top 5 ideas or theories members are interested in or working on? I think possibly a more important issue is the definition of "serious." I think one or more of the following characteristics, and maybe others, would qualify an investigator as serious: (a) A degree in energy related fields, especially a PHD. (b) A primary source of income is in the field, e.g. edits an energy related publication, teaches, etc. (c) Publishes articles, esp. in peer reviewed literature. (d) Actively performing experiments or doing quantitaive theory in an energy related field. (e) Able and willing to discuss energy related theories and experiments in a formal quantitative or symbolic manner The freenrg list has no criteria for seriousness, but does seem to focus even more stringently on experimental results. In a phone converstion with Hal Fox some years ago he said a typical amateur setup to investigate cold fusion was about $10,000. I couldn't imagine coming up with that kind of money. Looking back now, I have easily spent that kind of money on research apparatus and supplies. I don't really understand how that happened, except for a very understanding wife. The point is that it really is amazing what you can do over time though, if you are serious. I think I am serious. However, I am a rank amateur, picking this stuff up as I go. I have no degree. I am grateful the more serious have tolerated me here these years. My math and physics skills a few years ago were about zip, but have improved with work. You learn by *doing.* I think the primary focus here on vortex has been and should continue to be on experiments, or ideas or theories with a good prospect of producing near term experiments. That is not to say that occasional diversions are not to be tolerated, but rather to say that the amount of bandwidth given up to off topic material should be in inverse proportion to the degree it is off topic or non-serious. Also, the amount of tolerance for junk should should be and has been much greater when nothing much of importance is going on, like lately. Now to answer the question. My interests have ranged from experimental investigations of electrochemical energy production to non-conservative non-Maxwellian electromagnetic force laws. Like many others on the list, I have many more experiments with negative results than I have posted here. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 30 14:07:03 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA19761; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 14:05:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 14:05:09 -0700 Message-ID: <19980930210551.19620.rocketmail send101.yahoomail.com> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 14:05:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Jerry Wayne Decker Subject: Re: what is VORTEX-L for? To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"eD5lJ2.0.hq4.4qf4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22877 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gnorts Steve et al! AMEN to that! Or as they say in Egypt, AmunRay. ---Steve Ekwall wrote: > > >Bill Wallace wrote: > >> I would be interested in what a poll of the vortex list would show as the > >> top 5 ideas or theories members are interested in or working on? > > Aether concentration and capture for mechanical use, or anything that can tap into it. > > -=se=- > steve ( yes, i know, pipe dreams:) ekwall > you DID say, "interested in!" _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 30 14:41:36 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA32411; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 14:38:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 14:38:21 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com ) Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com Message-ID: <3612A509.8EEEAF96 css.mot.com> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 16:39:21 -0500 From: John Steck Organization: Motorola PCS - Rapid Tooling Applications X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Electrochemical Energy Production References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"9n2jZ3.0.yv7.CJg4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22878 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > My interests have ranged from experimental investigations of > electrochemical energy production to non-conservative non-Maxwellian > electromagnetic force laws. Like many others on the list, I have many more > experiments with negative results than I have posted here. Hi Horace! Speaking of electrochemical energy production, I just got an advertisement for a Brown's Gas Water Torch that aparently is now being offered as a production item. The good folks at Eagle Research are marketing it for Fuse Heat LTD, Calgary, Canada. Details on Eagle's site: . Price tag is a bit steep for us poor 'rank-amature' types, ha ha ha (before 12/31 $7,600+S/H, after 12/31 $9,900+S/H) but the operational parameters make it quite attractive for many practical uses and experiments. Fill it up with water and plug it in. That's it. How much more KIS can it get? Seeing as you were looking into water splitting not too long ago, I figured you might find this interesting. Unfortunately it's out of my reach play with too.... sigh. Always a pleasure to get your perspective on things. Hope all is well. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John E. Steck Senior Mechanical Engineer Rapid Tooling Applications Motorola, Libertyville, IL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Who watches the watchmen?" - The Comedian From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 30 14:52:58 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA04145; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 14:49:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 14:49:09 -0700 Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 17:46:32 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Blue vs Storms Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199809301749_MC2-5B28-D755 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"nzrAQ2.0.f01.JTg4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22879 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Scott Little writes: The real problem is that cold fusion observations are not reproducible and hence cannot be studied. That is incorrect. These results are difficult to reproduce, but if you follow the directions published by Storms, Fleischmann and others, reproducibility can be greatly enhanced. McKubre himself did not follow Fleischmann's advice. I don't care how many layers of protection and security you build into any one measurement system, if positive results occur as infrequently as they do at SRI, you cannot guarantee that such results are not the product of a systematic error. Little misunderstands a fundamental point, which was the theme of McKubre's ICCF7 presentation. Materials are the key to cold fusion. Most palladium does not work at all, some works marginally, and some always works. A calorimeter error would produce random results, uncorrelated with the cathode material. Look at the dramatic distribution of results reported by Miles: Source Success Ratio (excess heat / total tests) NRL Pd-B alloy 7/8 Johnson-Matthey (J-M) Pd 13/24 J-M from Fleischmann 4/4 NRL Pd (first batch) 1/2 Tanaka Pd (sheet) 1/3 NRL Pd (another batch) 0/4 NRL Pd-Ag 0/3 IMRA Japan Pd-Ag 0/2 WESTGO Pd 0/6 Pd/Cu 0/2 John Dash Pd (sheet) 0/2 Co-deposition (1992) 2/34 Total: 28/94 Assuming the choice of palladium cannot affect calorimeter performance, these results cannot be a reflection of a random calorimeter error. That is statistically impossible by a huge margin. The characteristics of good versus bad palladium are well understood. They are defined in the literature and in McKubre's papers. McKubre knows what kind of palladium he needs, but he does not know how to make it. I've brought this possibility up before and folks always jump on me and demand that I identify the nature of such an error. We do not jump on Little because he cannot identify the error. We jump on him because he does not explain how a calorimetric error could be correlated with or caused by the known control parameters: the cathode material characteristics like a small index of expansion and so on. Any correlation is physically impossible as far as I know. The situation is quite simple I think. Control experiments have been well defined and brilliantly performed. It is an old-fashioned straightforward correlation, with few parameters to worry about. Since 1989 the controlling parameters have been obvious: the cathode material is most important by far. Current density, temperature, a list of known poisons, and a few other factors must also be considered. The list is unusually short for a physics experiment. It is clear-cut. You must explain how these control parameters can cause an error in a calorimeter. If you can't, that source of error is ruled out. Little talks as if an "error" is a invisible goblin that we can never hope to pin down. I see it as a prosaic animal, easily captured by logic and statistics. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 30 15:22:47 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA18709; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 15:18:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 15:18:09 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 14:24:25 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Electrochemical Energy Production Resent-Message-ID: <"XJ2kJ3.0.7a4.Vug4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22880 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi John! At 4:39 PM 9/30/98, John Steck wrote: [snip] >Details on Eagle's site: >. > >Price tag is a bit steep for us poor 'rank-amature' types, ha ha ha (before >12/31 $7,600+S/H, after 12/31 $9,900+S/H) but the operational parameters >make it >quite attractive for many practical uses and experiments. Fill it up with >water >and plug it in. That's it. How much more KIS can it get? Hopefully it doesn't explode. 8^) > >Seeing as you were looking into water splitting not too long ago, I figured you >might find this interesting. Unfortunately it's out of my reach play with >too.... sigh. It is intersting, but the pricetag might as well be million bucks as far as I am concerned. Can't afford it. I can understand why commercial units are so expensive though - getting UL testing and commercial insurance I would suspect. Sorry, the water splitting stuff got buried in my queue but sooner or later it will resurface if I keep having failures as of late. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 30 18:43:09 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA32541; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 18:40:50 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 18:40:50 -0700 Message-ID: <067f01bdecdc$502e1700$ba98a8cf hh2152186.www.surfsouth.com> From: "Bill Wallace" To: Subject: Re: what is VORTEX-L for? Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 21:39:18 -0400 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: <"GxEe.0.My7.Xsj4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22881 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Some choices so far: Aether concentration and capture Cold Fusion Whirl Power >I think possibly a more important issue is the definition of "serious." I >think one or more of the following characteristics, and maybe others, would >qualify an investigator as serious: I wonder where great inventions or science has come from in the past milennia? What is the ratio of established disciplines release of world changing ideas or technology as compared to say the shadetree folks? > (a) A degree in energy related fields, especially a PHD. Did the PHD's of the yesterday invent a flying plane? > (b) A primary source of income is in the field, > e.g. edits an energy related publication, teaches, etc. I will agree with that one, wealth and success has seemed to be a great motivator in the past. > (c) Publishes articles, esp. in peer reviewed literature. Not necessary. > (d) Actively performing experiments or doing quantitaive theory > in an energy related field. Yes, little gets done if no fingers are lifted. > (e) Able and willing to discuss energy related theories > and experiments in a formal quantitative or symbolic manner Another I agree with. >I think I am serious. However, I am a rank amateur, picking this stuff up >as I go. I have no degree. I am grateful the more serious have tolerated >me here these years. My math and physics skills a few years ago were about >zip, but have improved with work. You learn by *doing.* Very true. >I think the primary focus here on vortex has been and should continue to be >on experiments, or ideas or theories with a good prospect of producing near >term experiments. I agree, it seems to me in the past when breakthroughs were made the competitive spirit was the driving force, but if we are all looking at 50 different things then it is hard. And specific goals are much easier to reach or conclude unreachable, I believe the freenrg list has decided efforts in the clem engine would be a good use of resources, why not something similar here? >My interests have ranged from experimental investigations of >electrochemical energy production to non-conservative non-Maxwellian >electromagnetic force laws. Like many others on the list, I have many more >experiments with negative results than I have posted here. Where do you think the newest breakthroughs lie, or where we need them the most? From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 30 18:48:44 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA00904; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 18:43:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 18:43:51 -0700 Sender: jack pop.centuryinter.net Message-ID: <361295C6.5F0947B9 mail.pc.centuryinter.net> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 20:34:14 +0000 From: "Taylor J. Smith" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 2.0.31 i486) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Anti-Stokes and "Inverse" Compton Effect, ZPE Connection? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"0EwTo.0.qD.Mvj4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22882 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > > Uh oh, a homework assignment, and me short on time. > I knew I should have kept quiet! 8^) If I had more > time maybe I could make this more concise > and to the point. Sorry. ... Hi Horace, That was a very nice derivation. Thanks, Jack Smith From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 30 19:15:27 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA14251; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 19:13:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 19:13:35 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980930221434.00706a48 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 22:14:34 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: what is VORTEX-L for? In-Reply-To: <02aa01bdec2e$79e148a0$ba98a8cf hh2152186.www.surfsouth.com > Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"GvnAD1.0.TU3.ELk4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22883 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:54 AM 9/30/98 -0400, "Bill Wallace" wrote: >>logic is faulty if you think anyone is sitting around here waiting for an >idea. >>No matter how significant you think yours is, we already have our own >>favorites. >I would be interested in what a poll of the vortex list would show as the >top 5 ideas or theories members are interested in or working on? At JET Energy Technology we are examining cold fusion systems driven both electrolytically and by sound, and are developing methods to increase the accuracy of methods to monitor these complex systems. Some studies involve radiation (both phonon and ionizing) interactions with matter. Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 30 19:18:48 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA16409; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 19:15:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 19:15:59 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980930221500.00702b34 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 22:15:00 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: XS heat? In-Reply-To: <341f1ce4.24977140 mail.eisa.net.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"qa6CV.0.G04.UNk4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22885 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 01:40 AM 9/14/97 GMT, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >Has anyone checked to see whether XS heat events occur at the same >date and time all over the world? Excess heat occurs with active materials and proper driving/loading conditions. Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 30 19:25:11 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA15476; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 19:19:50 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 19:19:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980930221338.007114e8 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 22:13:38 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Blue vs Storms In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980930153235.00de49b0 mail.eden.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"DC5jL3.0.gn3.5Rk4s" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22884 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 03:32 PM 9/30/98 -0500, Scott Little wrote: >At 10:01 9/30/98 +0200, britz wrote: > >>Still playing Devil's advocate here: Dick, your main thrust seems to >>be that you want the experimenters, who claim interesting results, to >>also devise theories to explain them, before you'll accept the >>results. I think this is a bit unfair. > >I agree with Dieter here...but I also bet that Dick is not really demanding >that valid theories accompany anomalous observations. > >The real problem is that cold fusion observations are not reproducible and >hence cannot be studied. They are increasingly reproducible. Scott apparently doesnt even want to LOOK if the excess heat is less than a kilowatt. ;-) The reactions CAN be studied and are. Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 30 21:03:28 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA23434; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 21:01:34 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 21:01:34 -0700 Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 21:03:56 -0700 From: Lynn Kurtz Subject: Re: Blue vs Storms In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.19980930221338.007114e8 world.std.com> X-Sender: kurtz imap2.asu.edu (Unverified) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <199810010402.VAA13327 smtp2.asu.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" References: <3.0.1.32.19980930153235.00de49b0 mail.eden.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"kS_9r1.0.3k5.Twl4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22886 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:13 PM 9/30/98 -0400, you wrote: > > > At 03:32 PM 9/30/98 -0500, Scott Little wrote: > >>The real problem is that cold fusion observations are not reproducible >> and hence cannot be studied. > > They are increasingly reproducible. Scott apparently doesnt > even want to LOOK if the excess heat is less than a kilowatt. ;-) > If my memory serves me well, I believe that I recall that Scott has a standing offer to test a working CF cell at no charge. Nobody has provided one for him to test. Do you have a working CF cell? --Lynn From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 30 21:40:49 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA12226; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 21:39:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 21:39:32 -0700 Message-ID: <3612FADA.1645 earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 22:45:30 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Murray: Rothwell: Blue vs Storms 9.30.98 References: <199809301749_MC2-5B28-D755 compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"p_mWI1.0.d-2.4Um4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22887 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Sept. 30, 1998 Thanks, Jed for your information about the statistics of Pd cathode material and excess heat results. May I repost this to my CF discussion list and SPF (where Britz can read it)? Regards, Rich Murray From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 30 21:54:21 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA21347; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 21:50:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 21:50:41 -0700 Message-ID: <3612FD76.34E5 earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 22:56:38 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Storms: Blue: CF debate 9.30.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Chvpc2.0.GD5.Wem4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22888 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Subject: Re: Blue: Storms: CF theory problems 9.28.98 Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 16:32:04 -0600 From: Edmund Storms To: rmforall earthlink.net reply to Blue 29 Sept 1998 Dear Rich et al. Dick Blue seems to take no responsibility for my failure to understand him, the problem being completely mine. However, the problem seems to be that we are coming from completely different directions. BLUE: As Dick Blue concludes, - Atoms are just too damn slow and too damn weak to compete in this game-. In addition, he says -To ask for deuteron fusion without neutron emission is about as reasonable as asking for a chemical reaction with sufficient energy-. In other words, the claimed nuclear reactions can not be influenced by the chemical environment, and the claimed excess energy can not be fusion without neutron emission. This being the case, he asks me to show him why this assertion is false. If I fail, he is free to conclude that CANR claims are nonsense, i.e. no unusual nuclear reactions are occurring, and any excess energy is either caused by error or some other prosaic process. Thus, Dick Blue starts at the end of the logic path and works forward. STORMS: On the other hand, I look at the experimental results, and conclude that a new and, as yet, unexplained phenomenon is operating. Clearly, what is seen should not happen for the reasons so clearly stated by Dick Blue. Nevertheless, it is real, because it can not be explained as error or by a prosaic process. This being the case, we are forced to look for novel explanations. Thus, I am starting at the beginning of the logic path, and working toward the end, albeit a different end than Dick Blue is starting at. The argument over the use of the term hot fusion is another example of how Dr. Blue and I occupy different worlds. I suggest that there may be two types of fusion, one requiring high energy (i.e. temperature) and one requiring very little energy. Therefore, a way needs to be found to distinguish between these two conditions. Convention has chosen hot fusion and cold fusion as the two descriptors. Dick Blue insists there is only one kind of fusion, that which requires high energy. Therefore, he requires only one word, FUSION. This approach simply defines my arguments out of existence, there being no word he will accept for what I am describing. This being the case, I see no way we can have a dialogue, because I can not prove that Dick Blue’s assertion is false, and he can not examine the experimental results without immediately rejecting them. We are at a stalemate. But, being an optimist in believing intelligent people will sooner or later find a way to connect, I will continue. I agree, the deuterium nucleus is, for all practical purposes, identical in D2, D+ or dissolved in Pd. However, the environment surrounding the nucleus is much different. The question is: Can this environment influence the rate at which a fusion reaction can occur? Of course, if a person answers NO to this question, further discussion is pointless. I presume Dick Blue is willing to give a tentative YES. The only reason to ask this question in the first place is the claimed production of various nuclear products, and occasional extraordinary amounts of energy, in various solids. A person who rejects these claims would have little incentive to answer this question at all, thus my initial emphasis on the experimental work. Adding to the complexity of the problem is the fact that the chemical environment in palladium, in addition to being different from D2, is highly variable and very unusual in many respects, aside from the CANR claims. These are facts which a large literature demonstrates. I do not have time or space here to go into more detail. I suggest Dick Blue do some homework or ask me some questions if he has trouble with this assertion. The question needing an answer is: Are any of these strange chemical environments relevant to initiating a nuclear reaction? Dick Blue would say NO and stop looking any further. But I will go on. If the environment is to have an influence, it must, in some way, offset the coulomb barrier. Obviously this does not happen very often. Therefore, the required conditions must be rare and difficult to achieve. Any theory must address this issue, as well as showing how the coulomb barrier is affected . At the present time, a number of approaches are being explored by various theoreticians. A summary of several approaches can be found in my review, published in the latest issue of Infinite Energy. Unfortunately, I have a personal problem with defending these explanations, because none of the approaches has yet to explain all of the observations, and I have yet to meet a theoretician who will agree that another theoretician is correct. Regardless of these problems, we still have some unusual phenomenon to explain. Ways to test some of the theories are being explored. While we are waiting for theoreticians to duke it out, the rest of us are trying to understand the nature of the chemical environment in which the claimed nuclear reactions occur. Dick Blue’s assertions to the contrary, we do see a correlation between the claimed effects and the chemical structure. If Dick Blue wants to explore this area, I would be happy to answer his questions and go into more detail. He did ask one question which deserves an answer: If there is some absolute threshold for electrolysis current density that must be exceeded to trigger CANR, how is it possible for Arata and Zhang to succeed with an electrolysis current on the reacting palladium of ZERO? The answer involves the nature of the unique region in which the nuclear reaction occurs. Considerable experience indicates that the nuclear reaction in PdD can only occur in regions having a very high deuterium concentration. These regions are produced in bulk palladium, i.e. in a P-F arrangement, only when the applied current has exceeded a critical value. This is not the only requirement but the one being discussed here. On the other hand, Arata-Zhang do not use bulk palladium but palladium-black. The palladium in their cell, being very finely divided, can achieve a very high surface concentration of deuterium from the ambient gas - the extra Gibbs energy from an applied voltage being unnecessary. Another arrangement proposed by Case is similar to the Arata-Zhang conditions except the finely divided Pd is attached to the surface of carbon, an arrangement which is easier to handle, but which is not different chemically. This arrangement has also been found to produce helium and excess heat, but in this case the deuterium is supplied from a gas bottle rather than being produced by electrolysis. In other words, electrolysis is only a means to an end. Other means are available, each with its own unique set of variables, but each giving the same result. This is the nature of chemistry, something a physicist may find strange. Does Dick Blue have an explanation for this consistent pattern of behavior? Regards, Ed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 30 21:56:31 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA23717; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 21:54:43 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 21:54:43 -0700 Message-ID: <19981001045616.7290.rocketmail send105.yahoomail.com> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 21:56:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Schaffer Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Superconductivity uses? To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"H3Ii53.0.Jo5.Iim4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22889 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Perhaps the largest commercial application of superconductivity is to make the magnets of (nuclear) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) devices used in hospitals for diagnosis. Other instruments are used for research in materials and medical laboratories. All these instruments need a very precise magnetic field of typically 2 tesla (20 kGauss). It takes a lot of power to make a 2 tesla field, especially over a large volume. The superconducting coil makes it for the price of refrigeration power to keep the superconductor at 4 kelvin. Yes, they still use conventional, low temperature superconductors (LTSC). I learned just last week that one niche application of high temperature superconductors (HTSC) is as a short bridge between LTSC at 4 K and room temperature. The HTSC link at 77 K (liq. N2) reduces the heat leak with respect to all-copper leads used earlier. == Michael J. Schaffer _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 30 23:05:21 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA18114; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 23:04:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 23:04:25 -0700 Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 23:05:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810010605.XAA00852 wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> From: "David Dennard" Reply-To: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: what is VORTEX-L for? Resent-Message-ID: <"FSa2-.0.wQ4.fjn4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22890 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Bill writes, > Some choices so far: > > Aether concentration and capture > Cold Fusion > Whirl Power Whirlpower makes the cut? I was about to sign off. > > >I think possibly a more important issue is the definition of "serious." I > >think one or more of the following characteristics, and maybe others, would > >qualify an investigator as serious: > > I wonder where great inventions or science has come from in the past > milennia? > What is the ratio of established disciplines release of world changing ideas > or technology as compared to say the shadetree folks? > > > > (a) A degree in energy related fields, especially a PHD. > > Did the PHD's of the yesterday invent a flying plane? >From all I have learned, and by the way I went to college for ten years, that it all seems to come from outside the establishment. Even this computer Big Blue could not see coming. > > > (b) A primary source of income is in the field, > > e.g. edits an energy related publication, teaches, etc. > > I will agree with that one, wealth and success has seemed to be a great > motivator in the past. I don't. > > > (c) Publishes articles, esp. in peer reviewed literature. > > Not necessary. > > > (d) Actively performing experiments or doing quantitaive theory > > in an energy related field. > > Yes, little gets done if no fingers are lifted. But Einstein said a thought is worth more than an invention and look at Hawkings for goodness sakes. > > > (e) Able and willing to discuss energy related theories > > and experiments in a formal quantitative or symbolic manner > > Another I agree with. Didn't help Galileo much. > > >I think I am serious. However, I am a rank amateur, picking this stuff up > >as I go. I have no degree. I am grateful the more serious have tolerated > >me here these years. My math and physics skills a few years ago were about > >zip, but have improved with work. You learn by *doing.* > > Very true. > > >I think the primary focus here on vortex has been and should continue to be > >on experiments, or ideas or theories with a good prospect of producing near > >term experiments. > > I agree, it seems to me in the past when breakthroughs were made the > competitive spirit was the driving force, but if we are all looking at 50 > different things then it is hard. And specific goals are much easier to > reach or conclude unreachable, I believe the freenrg list has decided > efforts in the clem engine would be a good use of resources, why not > something similar here? Here, Here! > > >My interests have ranged from experimental investigations of > >electrochemical energy production to non-conservative non-Maxwellian > >electromagnetic force laws. Like many others on the list, I have many more > >experiments with negative results than I have posted here. My college experience, in fact all my life experience in my younger years was an attempt to hide something. I joined the Army, I skipped classes in college, got into the independent study program, to try and hide my disability. I was not going to let it stop me. I am extreamly narcoleptic. Diagnosed by Dr. Richard Janeway, now Dean of the Boman Gray School of Medicine at the tender age of 17, I refused to give in to it. I joined the Army as a way to try and fight off the sleepyness. I couldn't, but learned to sleep at attention. Did thousands of extra pushups for sleeping. But I didn't quit. Got my honerable discharge, and was know as the best dental hygienist at Ft. Jackson. Gen. Westmoreland's wife used to always ask for me by name. I feel asleep cleaning peoples teeth all the time. Funny thing they were always already asleep, so we would just sit there motionless. Talk about Still Life With Woodpecker. Yes, I'm redheaded. So I probably went to college longer that some of you with PhD's and I am a veteran to boot. How I hated those boots. And I have two patents, can everyone here say they have patents? Why am I here? I was invited due to my work with Whirlpower. What am I looking for? The math. I want the math for a whirlpool. Not just for a simple vortex, but a full compound vortex whirlpool. It seems to be non-existant. It is not just the whirlpool in a spa but much wider so the full eddy effect cuts in. Even wider than Edward Maesen's graphic. I kept saying wider Edward wider. Guess it comes from being a hygienist. There is no data anywhere of one being built or tested. And that really baffels me, and makes me wonder where some of you folks put your curiosity. Does a PhD take it away? > > > Where do you think the newest breakthroughs lie, or where we need them the > most? I think it is stareing you right in the face. We need clean energy and we need it now. Whirlpower is the ticket. I thing a giant whirlpool at a current hydo facility will power a state or small country. It makes no pollution and is very simple to build, relatively speaking. I am guilty for not being able to do it. In my younger years I would have never admitted this even to myself. Now I am becoming a old man, I do not want to take any more Ritalin to try and stay awake longer. Now I sleep all I want. Somethimes 15 to 20 hours a day. Interesting thing though I never lose consciousness any more. I close my eyes and it is straight to dreamland. I have more fun that a barrel of monkeys. I can do anything I want, totally lucid. Better than Oz. But back here in Kansas I go about my work and try to be an inventor and bring all the woderful things I see into the world. I've got 30 more ready to go. And like Aqualung, they are great. John Steck said to me off board he would build Aqualung and over this past weekend he was going to make some sketches and get back to me. Well, I waited, Monday, Tuesday, and finally I said hey John, how long are you going to make me wait. I don't think he even planned to say anything for a while and had no idea I was counting the seconds hoping to hear from him. Why, because I thought he and everyone on this list were people of high honor and respectable integrity. And people like that did what they said they were going to do, and did not leave people hanging out to dry like lower class disrespectable people do. I guess I learned there is not a lot of difference in class. People are people. David Dennard The Phoenix "in sackcloth and ashes" From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 30 23:33:36 1998 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA24515; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 23:32:06 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 23:32:06 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 22:38:31 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: what is VORTEX-L for? Resent-Message-ID: <"lcovv1.0.y-5.b7o4s" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22891 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 9:39 PM 9/30/98, Bill Wallace wrote: [snip] > >Where do you think the newest breakthroughs lie, or where we need them the >most? I think if you turn over enough rocks you will find something. It is best if everone is not looking under the same rock. There is no telling what combination of discoveries will result in progress. The principle value of a group like this I think is in the technology exchange that helps each of us look under our own chosen rocks. If someone actually finds something though, I supsect most will want to take a look. Regards, Horace Heffner